The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Insolvency Bill: Second Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Insolvency Bill (NIA 14/01) be agreed.
As I said in relation to two earlier Bills, my Department is focused on updating our company and insolvency laws with a series of legislative measures designed to keep the legal framework for business in Northern Ireland at the forefront of best international practice.
The Insolvency Bill is the latest important measure that I am bringing to this session of the Assembly. It will ensure that small companies here can use the same company rescue procedures as their competitors in Great Britain, thus removing any potential disadvantages to local business.
It might be helpful for Members who are unfamiliar with company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) if I explain the current CVA procedures, their main drawbacks and the improvements that will be brought about by the Bill. The CVA procedure is a means for companies in financial difficulty to reach a legally-binding agreement with their creditors in satisfaction of their debts. A proposal will typically involve payment of a reduced sum to each creditor or payment over an extended period. There must be a majority vote of at least 75% in favour at separate meetings of a company’s creditors and members for a proposal to be approved. Once it has been approved, it becomes legally binding on everyone entitled to vote at the meetings, provided they were given notice that the vote was taking place.
However, the current procedure has several drawbacks. First, insolvency proceedings can be commenced while the proposals are being put together, thus thwarting the attempts to enter a voluntary arrangement. Secondly, not all creditors may be bound by the agreement. Finally, there has been a low uptake of the CVA procedure locally — about six cases a year.
If more successful rescues are to be achieved, change to the existing legislation is required. Measures that will enable companies to return to a sound financial footing will benefit everyone who could be adversely affected by a company’s getting into financial difficulties. Jobs saved, the dangers of cash flow problems for suppliers reduced and communities continuing to benefit from continuing spending power are very positive alternatives to outright closure.
The Bill aims to make company rescues more accessible to small companies here by extending to them the choice of availing of a short moratorium. Such a moratorium would give small companies in financial difficulties a breathing space free from creditor pressure to consult an appropriately qualified expert to see if a successful rescue package could be put together, and, if so, to prepare one for consideration at meetings of the company and its creditors.
The proposed new procedures will be available in addition to the existing CVA procedure that will continue to be used where a moratorium is unnecessary. Under current legislation, a moratorium is provided only for insolvent individuals. The proposed change will mean that small companies will no longer be at a competitive disadvantage.
To sum up, the intention of the Bill is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the system in Great Britain following amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 made by the Insolvency Act 2000. In so doing, it will introduce the option of a short moratorium for small companies that will give them time, free from the threat of immediate creditor proceedings, to attempt to set up a voluntary arrangement. That is a significant step that provides a remedy against a voluntary arrangement’s being thwarted, for example, by a single creditor, to the detriment of the other company creditors, and it is legally binding on all creditors. These improvements will result in an increased uptake of the CVA procedures, and Northern Ireland will benefit as a consequence.
Finally, the provisions of the Insolvency Bill are important advances that have been generally welcomed by insolvency professionals. That reflects the Bill’s non-controversial nature, the fact that it is attempting to remedy drawbacks in the system and the fact that it is seen to be helping to create conditions in which otherwise viable businesses can continue to develop and expand.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Insolvency Bill (NIA 14/01) be agreed.

Company Directors Disqualification Bill: Second Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Company Directors Disqualification Bill (NIA 15/01) be agreed.
My Department is focused on updating our company insolvency laws with a series of legislative measures, and the Company Directors Disqualification Bill is the final measure that I am bringing to this session of the Assembly. It is an important measure that goes towards meeting my Department’s commitment to keep the legal framework for business here at the forefront of best international practice. The Bill will ensure that we have up-to-date law to deal with the problem of unfit directors, and it will provide a means of preventing such individuals from acting as directors for a period commensurate with the degree of their unfitness.
It might be helpful if I explain to Members the current position and the improvements that the new Bill will introduce. It is widely known that the status of limited liability affords a special privilege — namely, that directors of a company are not, in the main, liable for that company’s debts. Disqualification for unfitness is a means of protecting consumers, and the public generally, from those who would abuse the system of limited liability and also from those who, while not deliberately abusing it, have shown themselves unfit through incompetence.
Under the present system a person can only be disqualified from acting as a director for a limited liability company by means of a court order. That order is normally made by the High Court on the application of my Department in cases where the company has become insolvent and the insolvency practitioner in charge of the insolvency, or the official receiver in the case of compulsory liquidation, has submitted a report alleging unfit conduct.
The Bill seeks to introduce a new method of disqualification. It is disqualification by consent, without the involvement of the court, where there is evidence of unfitness on the part of a director and where that director is not disputing his or her unfitness. In such cases, the Department will be able to accept a statutorily-based undertaking from the director not to act as a director for a specific period. That undertaking will have the same basis in law as if it had been a disqualification order made by the court. Any breach of the undertaking will have the same effect as contravention of a court order: namely, it will be a criminal offence and can lead to personal liability for the debts of a company. Those sanctions would not apply under the current system were a director to offer an undertaking in lieu of the matter going to a hearing in court. In addition, an undertaking given under the new system will be entered in the register of disqualification orders and undertakings. Any undertaking given under the current system could not have been so entered.
The Bill also provides for details of all orders made and undertakings given in Northern Ireland to be sent to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for inclusion in a UK-wide register of disqualification orders and undertakings. That is important in ensuring that details of all disqualification orders and undertakings are disseminated as widely as possible in the interest of protecting the consumer and the public.
As well as the advantages that I have outlined, the new system will have three other significant advantages. First, there will be a saving for the director in legal costs, as there will no longer be an award of the Department’s costs against him. Secondly, there will be a saving in court time, as it will no longer be dealing with uncontested cases where the director has indicated his intention to accept that he will be found unfit, or where he is introducing evidence solely in mitigation with the intention of justifying a short period of disqualification. Thirdly, it will result in a speeding-up of processing time in uncontested or mitigation-only cases.
The provisions in the Bill will not, however, mean that a director will be put under pressure to accept disqualification rather than defend his reputation in court. Whether or not he accepts the Department’s allegations of unfitness, he may still choose to allow a court to adjudicate on the basis of the evidence. Equally, he may at any time after filing the proceedings in court, seek to make an undertaking. The Department may, in those circumstances, withdraw the proceedings with a consequent saving in costs to the director and in court time.
The intention of the Bill is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the system applying in Great Britain, following amendments to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 made by the Insolvency Act 2000. In so doing, it introduces in particular the option of a voluntary disqualification by a legally enforceable undertaking. That represents a significant step forward, by simplifying the whole procedure; by the provision of undertakings to be entered in a public register to protect consumers and the public; and by saving the director his or her legal costs. Those represent important advances that are also generally welcomed by insolvency practitioners.
That, I believe, reflects the non-controversial nature of the Bill and the fact that it applies a common-sense approach to the practicalities of the disqualification procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Company Directors Disqualification Bill (NIA 15/01) be agreed.

Local Air Quality Management Bill: Second Stage

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Local Air Quality Management Bill (NIA 13/01) be agreed.
The purpose of the Bill is to transpose the EC Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management. In addition, the proposed Bill will satisfy the commitments in the Executive’s Programme for Government and ‘Investing for Health’. It is to be in place by May 2003. The Bill also aims to deliver Northern Ireland’s contribution to the targets in the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That requires the establishment of a statutory scheme affecting the relevant parties.
The Bill, therefore, places a range of statutory requirements on district councils and relevant authorities that will be prescribed by forthcoming Regulations. Those statutory requirements are dictated by the responsibilities in the control of the various agencies and by what is required to satisfy the Directive and deliver compliance with the air quality strategy objectives.
The Bill requires that the Department draw up, on its own or in conjunction with other United Kingdom Administrations, an air quality strategy. It places a duty on district councils to conduct reviews and assessments of local air quality — a process that all 26 district councils are already voluntarily engaged in. The Bill provides for the declaration by district councils of air quality management areas and the establishment of action plans indicating the measures to be taken where there is a risk of air quality standards or objectives being exceeded.
The Bill also requires relevant authorities to provide information and produce proposals to secure necessary improvements in air quality relating to the activities under their control. It will allow the Department of the Environment to provide financial assistance for air quality review assessment or management activities.
Research has shown that poor air quality can exacerbate respiratory and heart conditions. For that reason, the production of the Bill is one of the Executive’s ‘Investing for Health’ targets, and recent research, which included Belfast, indicated that poorer air quality is frequently found in socially deprived areas. The Bill is, therefore, likely to most significantly improve air quality for those who live and work in socially deprived areas.
The Department of the Environment carried out a full public consultation in late 2001; approximately 500 organisations and individuals were consulted. They included the Committee for the Environment, MLAs, departmental statutory bodies, the relevant environmental bodies, district councils and other relevant organisations, including minority groups.
The Department is content that the majority of the issues raised are satisfactorily dealt with by the legislation. Of the remaining issues, four were rejected — they related to the promotion of fuel types, which is not within the remit of the Bill — but the suggestions regarding enhanced public access to information were incorporated. The Bill will bring environmental and health benefits to people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I have difficulty in breathing, even when the air is pure. Therefore, I know better than many how important it is to stop poisoning the air, not only so that we can enjoy life but also so that we can go on living. The alarming increase in the number of old people dying from respiratory problems cannot be ignored, and even more frightening is the ever-increasing number of young people suffering from asthma. The millions of tonnes of toxic chemicals that are pumped into the air daily may not be the only cause of this, but it would be criminally irresponsible not to admit that they must be a factor, as well as being the major cause of global warming and climate change.
I approve of and support legislation that is aimed at improving and managing air quality. People have shown that, if left alone, they are not too interested in keeping the air clean, or are too greedy to do so.
The name of the Local Air Quality Management Bill is a bit of a joke, but not much of a laugh. There is no such thing as local air. Our air is everybody’s air and everybody’s air is our air. Events at Chernobyl and Sellafield have taught us that. We cannot build a peace wall 20 miles high to keep clean air in and dirty air out.
We must ensure that the air that we are responsible for is as clean as we can make it. The Bill makes district councils responsible for the air in their districts, which is OK if with that responsibility come the resources and powers to fulfil their duties effectively. I am worried about that.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 empower district councils to carry out reviews, to make assessments, to designate areas, to make further assessments, to prepare reports and action plans, to revise their action plans and to send the Department and each relevant authority a copy of their finally determined plans. To what end? Clause 6 will give the Department reserve powers to turn on its head everything a council has done.
Time does not allow me to go into details, but they are set out in subsections (1) to (7). Subsection (7) is the sting in the tail, as it requires the district council to comply with any direction given to it under the legislation. That may seem a necessary safeguard to ensure compliance with international treaties and agreements, to ensure consistency of action and to deal with incompetent councils, if there are any. That is understandable, and it is even acceptable if carried out with some tact or finesse. However, there seems to be nothing in the legislation that allows for councils to appeal a decision or direction. In cross-cutting issues where two or more Departments have a difference of opinion about some requirements of the Bill, the relevant Ministers can put their heads together and reach a gentleperson’s agreement. I may be wrong, but councils seem to have no facility for arguing or defending their actions if they feel that their action plans are reasonable and workable in their circumstances, but the Department thinks differently. Will the Minister reassure me that I am wrong in that assumption?

Mr David Ford: I welcome the broad provisions of the Bill, but I would like to pose one or two questions to the Minister on matters that do not appear to have been dealt with in full. First, clause 2(6) appears to suggest that the Department of the Environment will have authority over other Departments. Perhaps the Minister could explain how that authority will be exercised, if the interpretation is that the Department of the Environment will have the right to tell other Departments and authorities what to do.
Clause 5(8) makes an interesting reference to a disagreement between a district council and a relevant authority, yet it does not spell out how that disagreement is defined. Reference is made earlier in clause 5 to the council’s contribution towards any action plan and submissions from other relevant authorities, but it does not say that the council has the right to vet the decisions of other authorities. I suspect that other Departments will be reluctant for councils to tell them what to do. However, it talks about registering a disagreement and the matter then being adjudicated by the Department of the Environment.
We might find that the combined activity of private motorists and the Department for Regional Development’s Roads Service is a major source of air pollution. Will the council be authorised to tell the Roads Service what to do, in that case? I doubt if that will be acceptable. Will the Department of the Environment then have the power to step in, or will we see some kind of back-room deal between two Ministers? A gentleperson’s agreement may be satisfactory, but if it is arrived at behind closed doors without the knowledge of the district council responsible for drawing up the action plan, that is not the transparent, open Government that we are supposed to be looking forward to. The Minister and his officials will have to address that in some detail now or at Committee Stage.
I was also fascinated by some of the definitions. In clause 19 I made the amazing discovery that "air" means ambient air, which is perhaps simple enough until a few definitions later we discover that "ambient air" means outdoor air in the troposphere.
That is news to me, since I was not sure that the entire troposphere came under the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I presume that it refers to the part of the troposphere that is vertically above the land area of Northern Ireland.
There seems to be a contradiction in the concept of promoting air quality, yet excluding open-air workplaces. We all know the problems that can arise — for example, the nuisance that can be caused to neighbours by quarrying operations. Is the Minister saying that anything that arises from an industrial process such as quarrying does not affect air quality? That issue should be addressed in detail.
Since the House is so engrossed in the Bill, I do not wish to detain it for too long. Schedule 1 refers to consultation. It may be that that section of the Bill has been lifted from the equivalent Westminster legislation, but there is a particular issue in Northern Ireland that does not apply in Great Britain. There may be district councils, or perhaps county councils
"whose district is contiguous to the council’s district"
— in the words of schedule 1(2)(b) — but which are under another jurisdiction in the form of the Republic of Ireland.
Without going as far as Chernobyl, as Arthur Doherty did, if we are to do anything about tackling air quality we should at least look at whether there are North/South issues where air quality in the North can affect the Republic and vice versa. I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us, and I promise him that we will have an interesting Committee Stage on that issue.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Two Members have spoken on the Bill, which is a little more than Sir Reg Empey had on the Bills that he sponsored this morning. It is similar to the number of Members who spoke on a Statutory Rule that I brought to the House yesterday, and it is 100% more than what Dr Farren had yesterday, so we are getting a light load on the Second Stage debates. Perhaps I am filibustering until I get my papers organised.

Mr Speaker: The Minister’s honesty is commendable.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I hope that it will be noted and underlined that my honesty pervades the Chamber, even when I am outside.
I thank the two Members who commented. My officials will scrutinise Hansard, and if I overlook any aspects in the detail of what was said, they will write to the Members accordingly. Mr Ford said that there would be "an interesting Committee Stage". I look forward to constructive intercourse between the Committee, the Department and myself, as has been the case in the Committee Stages of other Bills.
Mr Arthur Doherty referred to respiratory problems and local air. It is not only local air, it can be wider, which is a point that was made by Mr Ford when he referred to North/South issues and those aspects that we need to address, and district councils’ designation of areas for action plans.
Mr Doherty addressed a key point when he asked "To what end?" He said that the Department of the Environment will have the power to do what it wishes. His implication was that the Department would overturn those aspects negatively. I assure Mr Doherty that any direction that would come from the Department would be positive. It would be a direction to do those things that a council would be meant to be doing, if it were not doing them. That is important because we view this aspect of highlighting problems and areas of action plans as important. The environmental health departments of district councils are the key drivers of that aspect of air quality.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Mr Ford asked about authority over other Departments, and about that issue being addressed at Committee Stage. A requirement of the proposed legislation is that district councils will submit proposals for action plans, which have been mentioned. Departments are committed to air quality strategies. However, on a practical level, should any Department fail to fulfil its statutory duties, the matter will be resolved bilaterally between Ministers, or by the Executive in their final analysis. If a Department has failed to discharge its duty, the High Court — on the application of a relevant authority — could declare that to be unlawful as an act of omission. Relevant authorities will be prescribed in the forthcoming legislation.
Consultation on the North/South issue needs to be addressed, as Mr Ford indicated. The problem is not so much trans-boundary, but more localised. However, I accept that the strategy in which the Department is involved is a UK-wide strategy. Air quality is not localised. As always, co-operation will be needed to deliver on that strategy. As part of the first stage of the review and reassessment process, councils that are adjacent to the border have considered, neighbouring sources of air pollution across the border. In all cases, that review has shown that those sources have no significant effect on local air quality and, therefore, do not need to be considered much further.
I have covered the points raised by both Members. If any details have not been covered, Department of the Environment officials will scrupulously scrutinise Hansard, and those details will be provided. It is my firm belief that the Bill is necessary in order to transpose EU Directives, to satisfy the Executive’s Programme for Government, and to invest in better health and ambience for the environment. However, it will also benefit the entire Northern Ireland public. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Local Air Quality Management Bill (NIA 13/01) be agreed.

Budget (No.2) Bill: Consideration Stage

Ms Jane Morrice: I advise the House that no amendments to the Bill have been tabled. Therefore, by leave of the Assembly, I propose to group together the six clauses of the Bill, followed by the three schedules, and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Ms Jane Morrice: That concludes Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee for Social Development: Inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland

Mr Fred Cobain: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the second report of the Committee for Social Development on their inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland (Homelessness) (3/01/R) and calls on the Executive to consider the report and arrange for the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.
The report deals with the serious and, I regret to say, growing problem of homelessness. The latest figures available for the Committee’s inquiry relate to 2000-01, at which time 12,694 households presented as homeless. Within the past week, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has released figures for 2001-02 that show a 10% increase on last year’s figure. That means that more than 14,000 households presented as homeless. That the trend continues upwards rather than downwards should concern everyone in the Assembly. We should also be alarmed at the increasing trend of young people who are presenting as homeless.
Homelessness is a serious social, economic, health and education issue. How can we, as locally elected representatives, stand over policies that patently fail to reverse the increasing trends of homelessness? We are always on the lookout for good news stories, and we can be proud of the many achievements that have come from the establishment and operation of a local Assembly. By the same token, we should be thoroughly ashamed that we are responsible for failing the vulnerable and needy in society.
There is no denying that the homeless fall into that category. I doubt whether anyone is more needy than the person without a home, yet the report shows that levels of homelessness are on the increase. As I have said, more and more young people are homeless. We must ask what we are doing about that. We talk about promoting social inclusion and claim to be targeting social need, but where are the actions behind those fine words and rhetoric?
The Committee is bringing an important issue to the House’s attention. Homelessness deserves to be on the political agenda. It is a complex problem that is not simply about bricks and mortar or a place to live; it is about providing support services, and identifying new solutions and models of good practice.
I thank my fellow Committee members for taking their responsibilities seriously while the inquiry was under way. The evidence of those efforts is contained in the report. On behalf of the Committee, I express our gratitude to everyone who submitted written and oral evidence. We are also grateful to staff in the Committee office for their services during the inquiry. Research and Library Service staff also warrant a mention for their comprehensive and helpful briefing papers. I also acknowledge the staff in Hansard for recording the oral evidence sessions and those responsible for the printing, publication and distribution of the report.
The real praise, however, is for those on the ground. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the health boards and trusts, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, and the specialist organisations in the voluntary and community sector are all doing what they can to tackle homelessness.
I pay credit to them for that, but we must do more, and we must do it better. We must show political will and leadership. We all owe a duty of care to the vulnerable and the needy. We must show commitment, especially to a joined-up approach that is more geared to prevention. However, we must also put in place whatever resources are necessary to tackle the problem, so that we can provide for the homeless and reduce the number of people who find themselves homeless.
We have called for new housing legislation almost since we first set foot in the Chamber after power was devolved more than two years ago, but, as the mandate for the Assembly runs out, the housing Bill has still not been introduced.
We are promised that it will reach the House next week. It is my hope that the Bill will give us the platform and the tools to deal with such issues as homelessness. Although the Committee for Social Development has waited patiently for the legislation, its members have not sat on their hands. The report on the first phase of the inquiry into housing in Northern Ireland was published in November 2001.
The Committee did not stop there. The second phase, which was put together over the last six months, contains 22 recommendations. It reveals that homelessness is on the increase, identifies the absence of a proper preventative strategy and is a damning indictment of our promises to help the vulnerable and the needy. It highlights the need for improvements in the way we do things. Most importantly, it confirms that homelessness is not just about bricks and mortar. It is much more complex than that. Evidence of the critical need to provide a range of support services for the homeless was overwhelming. Being homeless can seriously damage health, and prevention is better than cure. Those are facts. If we are serious about tackling homelessness we must ensure that sufficient resources are available to provide the necessary support services, and that there is a workable strategy to reduce and prevent it. Homelessness will not go away unless and until something is done about it. We must match our fine words with actions and ensure that the money is available to fund those actions.
I am not privy to how the Executive reach their decisions; however, I call on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister of Education and the Minister for Employment and Learning, as those responsible for the health and well-being, and the education and training of our young people, to work with the Minister for Social Development to tackle the problem of homelessness in a more co-ordinated way. They must wake up to the fact that they too have a role to play.
My Colleagues on the Committee will deal with the report in detail and will draw attention to the main areas considered and the recommendations made. I shall, however, be surprised and disappointed if other Members do not speak in this debate. I hope that my Colleagues on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Committee for Education and the Committee for Employment and Learning will rise to the challenge of ensuring an effective and co-ordinated interdepartmental and interagency approach. I hope that the relevant Ministers will be called to account and asked what commitments they are prepared to make and what actions they are prepared to take in tackling homelessness. All of us have a moral obligation to help those who are disadvantaged. Let us not lose sight of that.
The Committee for Social Development has at least done something by bringing the report to the Assembly’s attention. I commend it to all Members, but that is not the end of the process. I hope that the report will return housing to the political agenda, where it belongs. The Committee’s work throughout the inquiry places it in an informed position, and that work will stand it in good stead in the scrutiny of the housing Bill and the housing support services Bill.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I support the report and thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development for leading the Committee through a very difficult and sometimes overwhelming exercise. The amount of evidence received from various sources was remarkable. The Committee is indebted to those who gave their time and expertise in assisting with the report’s compilation.
As the Committee Chairperson said, homelessness is a spiralling problem. All of us have noticed it growing incrementally, year-on-year, at an unacceptable rate.
The most recent figures, which the Chairperson announced this morning, show that this year there has been a 10% increase on last year’s huge increase of 15%. We must do something definite and dramatic to halt the increase, and much of the Committee’s work, which is contained in the recommendations, will help to do that.
Rural homelessness is one of the most difficult problems to deal with. Homelessness is increasing in rural areas, but, perhaps because of ill-placed pride or fear of ridicule, people will not reveal the true levels. Sensitive, direct policies are needed to deal with such issues. It is a difficult nut to crack, especially in rural areas where there is insufficient temporary accommodation. In urban areas, considerable steps are taken to provide temporary accommodation; that is not the case in rural areas.
Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is plentiful in Newcastle, and, in my experience, it is offered as the last resort for homeless people in rural areas. Homeless people come to my constituency office in Newcastle, and one pathetic case stands out in my memory. A single mother with three young children was living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They had breakfast in the morning and were then required to leave the premises and walk the streets of Newcastle until bedtime. That is unacceptable and uncivilised, but it is a solution in areas that cannot provide quality temporary accommodation for homeless people. The problem must be addressed.
Homelessness among young people is more poignant and takes many forms. Homelessness depends on individuals, families and their circumstances, so it cannot be generalised. That is especially true for young people. There are many areas to consider. For example, a Committee debate, which is reflected in recommendation 4, raised concerns about the deteriorating quality of family life and the need for a family to be a caring unit to sustain people in need.
We must protect the family unit. However, that argument has another side. Homelessness among young people is often caused by family break-up and disruption, and abuse in the home. It is a delicate area that has two distinct arguments, which the Committee has addressed in recommendations 3 to 8.
The Committee was unanimous about the need for interagency support for young people leaving care and for young people who are already in care. It is crucial that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety address this matter. The Chairperson has already mentioned that homelessness among young people has many dimensions and that other Departments, including the Department of Education, have roles to play.
I have been a local representative and a councillor for several years, and I am used to hearing about young people who leave care and are allocated Housing Executive flats. The neighbours then start to complain about parties and antisocial behaviour in the flat. That is a big problem. Research shows that young people leaving care have often had no love and support. When they move into a flat, they have no coping skills. To replace the love that they have missed out on, they look for the attention of contemporaries, who can make them feel popular, by inviting them to parties. It is a substitute for something that they have never had. All kinds of antisocial behaviour can stem from such a situation.
Support must be available for those young people when they are in care, when they are preparing to leave care and after they have left care. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has introduced the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which will give a support mechanism that the Committee welcomes. However, more needs to be done to help those young people before they leave care. As an educationist, I know that certain aptitudes such as budgeting, hygiene and relationship skills can be taught. A life skills programme has existed for many years, so all those resources should be used to try to solve the problem.
I support the report as it is published, but I reserve judgement on one matter. I have misgivings about the concept of intentional homelessness which affects young people in particular, and whether young people who present themselves as homeless can be placed on a priority list. There was a pointed issue about the legislative position of the Housing Executive and its ability to deal with that. The Committee agreed to proceed rather than hold up the report, but with the proviso that I reserve judgement on that issue.
The legislative position covers certain matters. To be considered as priority, 16- or 17-year-olds must fit into one of six categories. They must be pregnant; have a dependent child or children; be at risk of sexual or financial exploitation; be vulnerable as a result of a mental or physical disability or for any other special reason; be subject to or at risk of violence; or be homeless as a result of an emergency such as a fire, flood or other disaster.
Those criteria define the Housing Executive’s legislative competencies to investigate the circumstances. However, most young people who are homeless do not fall into those categories and are not considered as priority. I am putting a marker down on this — Mr Cobain is smiling at me — and I will return to it when we are consulting on the Bill, when it will be important.
The Homelessness Act 2002 in England is a more modern Act than the Bill we are about to deal with. The housing magazine, the ‘Adviser’, of May/June 2002 stated that
"Not included in the 2002 Act, but contained in a draft order intended to come into effect when the body of the homeless reform is enacted, is an extension of the categories of priority need in s 189 of the 1996 Act. … Brought within the scope of this section are applicants who are: 16- and 17-years-old; care leavers aged between 18 and 21; vulnerable as a result of either being looked after, accommodated or fostered by a local authority, having been in the armed forces or in prison; vulnerable as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation following violence or threats of violence."
That is an example of the more generous provision made in the Homelessness Act 2002 to cope with the problem, and we should follow that example to deal not just with the young homeless, but with every aspect of homelessness.

Mr Mark Robinson: I welcome the fact that homelessness has moved up the agenda and is being debated here today. I acknowledge the many hours worked by the Committee staff and their successful compilation of the many documents and drafts involved in making the report. I also thank the agencies that took the time to make their written and oral submissions on the subject.
In our society, the sad and stark reality is that homelessness affects a sizeable number of people, and there is a higher rate of homelessness here than anywhere else in the UK. Housing Executive statistics for 2000-01 have revealed an increase of 15·5% in households presenting themselves as homeless. That is extremely worrying and confirms that homelessness should, and must, be taken seriously — we cannot simply tolerate it.
Poverty in society, coupled with the gradual erosion and breakdown of the family unit has forced many individuals, especially young people, into a state of dispossession and homelessness. Youth homelessness has increased by 15% in the last four years. Northern Ireland, undoubtedly, has an invisible community of dispossessed and poverty-stricken people who go unnoticed, and the sheer magnitude of the situation is illustrated by the following figures: there were 12,700 homeless households in Northern Ireland last year; families with children represented 41% of that total; 56% were placed temporarily in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and the average length of stay there was 131 days.
Families and individuals who find themselves homeless are very often caught in a vicious circle of poverty and deprivation, and it becomes increasingly difficult to break out of that cycle. Being homeless is much more than not having a roof over your head. The impact of homelessness is appalling.
It leads to exclusion from society and creates barriers to access. For example, if someone has no job, he cannot get a bank account and, therefore, he cannot get credit. That can lead to exclusion from health services and education. Homeless people are one of the most vulnerable groups in society.
As a Member for South Belfast, many constituents who need help to secure permanent accommodation have contacted my office. I have dealt with homeless families who have had to move into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, often having to move out of the areas that they are familiar with. This has an extremely negative impact and often leads to instability in the families. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be a temporary measure, but, as I said, the average stay is 131 days. That is unacceptable and begs the question: how urgently is housing need met?
Legislation on homelessness came into effect in April 1989 in the form of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. There is obviously a need for that legislation to be reviewed, and I welcome the Housing Executive’s review of its strategy on homelessness. The major strength of the current arrangement is that a statutory duty is placed on the Housing Executive to deal with those who are homeless. The Housing Executive has a fundamental role to play and in its review has consulted widely with other concerned organisations, such as the Simon Community and Shelter, which have been working to address those issues for many years.
One problem that has been identified is that the Housing Executive, the many voluntary agencies and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have had their own approaches and have worked independently. If the growing problem of homelessness is to be tackled effectively, a collective, inter-agency approach must be adopted. The Housing Executive has said that working alongside other agencies, both statutory and voluntary, is
"crucial to achieving success in planning and developing accommodation advice and support services, with the overall aim of finding flexible efficient solutions to homelessness."
This universal approach would prevent confusion and needless referrals and stop people getting lost in the system. It would also lead to a sharing of information, with relevant agencies having access to it. That would create a more effective and practical system and reduce needless and endless red tape. It would also enable service providers to seek accommodation best suited to the needs of the individual.
Homelessness requires much more than a 9.00 am-to 5.00 pm, Monday-to-Friday approach, which is why great importance has been placed on the development and co-ordination of a strong and effective out-of-hours service based on an integrated approach.
We must examine the causes of homelessness and introduce measures to reduce the current level, so we must also examine the availability of affordable housing. The Housing Executive must take account of the fact that there will always be some who cannot afford to buy a house and seek to strike a balance between the housing stock that it intends to sell and the building of social housing. In effect, the Housing Executive must ensure that it has properly examined the supply-and-demand chain. Fewer than 2,000 social housing units are being built by housing associations each year, while there is an annual loss of over 4,000 Housing Executive properties, so it is obvious that supply is falling short of demand, and urgent changes must be made to accommodate the demand for social housing. Demand for social housing must never be found wanting.
It is imperative that increased priority be given to dealing with homelessness and adequate funding allocated to bring about the required changes. We must not underestimate the role of voluntary organisations in supporting the most vulnerable in society, two of which, the Simon Community and Shelter, have worked in the most difficult circumstances for years.
I hope that as a result of today’s debate, positive action will be taken on funding to underpin the implementation process and, in the longer term, the programme delivery.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support the report; it is a valuable and timely piece of work. Last year in Parliament Buildings there was a presentation on homelessness by young people who had been in care or who had been homeless. It certainly demonstrated the unacceptable level of young people who have left home for a number of reasons — the break up of their parents’ relationship, the loss of a job, the death of a parent, and, of course, intimidation, to name but a few.
Those young people gave a wonderful insight into how a co-ordinated strategy can help young people. At that time, it was estimated that over 2,000 young people under the age of 16 had left home during the previous year, and, as others have said, the number is increasing. That is totally unacceptable — words that will be used more and more in the debate.
Another unacceptable fact is that Northern Ireland is the worst region for homelessness in the UK. People — and some of them are actually in Government — obviously feel that we do not have the same problem as there is in London, Dublin, or elsewhere because we do not see large numbers of street dwellers. In those cities you can actually walk over people in the streets at any time of the day or night. That opinion is definitely not the case: we do have that problem. As another Member said, homeless people are hidden, but they are there. A visit to the Simon Community, Shelter, the Council for the Homeless, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or the Probation Board for Northern Ireland would soon put people right on that point. I want to take the opportunity to place on record my party’s appreciation of the organisations that work with the homeless in Northern Ireland, including my organisation, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
It is clearly established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that people have the right to a safe, secure, and permanent roof over their heads. That requires a co-ordinated approach by all relevant Departments — Health, Social Services and Public Safety; Employment and Learning; and Education — along with the relevant organisations which work directly with the homeless, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the other bodies I have mentioned. The report clearly indicates and supports that co-ordinated approach.
A constantly developing strategy is needed to deal effectively and practically with the problems facing people with no fixed abode. I agree with the Committee that homelessness is a serious social and economic issue that must be given the highest priority.
The fact that the number of homeless people is increasing reflects badly on our society, and the Assembly must take that on board. We must all play our part in supporting the eradication of homelessness, and ensuring that proper legislation is passed to define the joined-up approach that can achieve that goal. As the Committee stated, this will give a much higher profile and sharper focus within the political context. I agree with other Members who said that it is not just a question of putting a roof over people’s heads, and that is why we need a joined-up approach.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, together with the Departments, can be the leader in improving the situation in association with homeless organisations. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive must also be to the forefront in redefining homelessness, and our own Executive would do well to note the Committee’s suggestion that the definition of homelessness could be the absence of a safe and accessible place to stay. Mr ONeill touched on the problem of people being intentionally homeless. I support his comments, having witnessed much of that. A person presenting as homeless should be guaranteed housing promptly. There should be a review of hostel accommodation, including specially designed emergency and/or permanent housing for all — especially the young.
Mr ONeill related a story about emergency placements in his area, and every Member could give examples of that. Only last week a woman with two young children contacted me. The children are educated in Bangor and the woman works in Bangor, but she was told that they would have to go to Portadown or Newcastle to live. Schools and employment were not taken into account because there is a lack of suitable temporary accommodation in north Down.
Scotland and Westminster have adopted legislation providing for a strategy to deal with homelessness that focuses on prevention. The duty to relocate is enforced in that legislation. I also commend the Irish ‘Homelessness – an Integrated Strategy’, which has recommended that the employment services appoint a person specifically to consider employment and homelessness in Dublin and to provide an assessment of skills and training needs. Those initiatives could be followed here to reduce our level of homelessness.
I agree that we need to develop a clear and coherent strategy, and the report states that clearly. An action plan that sets clear targets for reducing homelessness is also needed. Joined-up government in all respects is essential. The report highlights the need to recognise that the problem does not just exist at Christmas but needs attention all year round.
My party and I support fully the Committee’s call to the Executive to demonstrate political leadership and direction in promoting a joined-up approach. I, therefore, commend the report and congratulate the Committee members and staff for their excellent and timely inquiry.

Sir John Gorman: I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber ever considers how he would behave if he were homeless. Homelessness is almost unimaginable to us, but it is a major factor in people’s lives outside the Chamber. We cannot begin to conceive what it must be like to have nowhere safe to live. We can only imagine the effect that it must have on the employment, health and educational prospects of a person or family, not to mention self-esteem. However, we can deal with the effects of homelessness on the welfare of communities and society here as a whole.
Homelessness used to be a Cinderella issue here. As many know, I was head of the Housing Executive for several years. In those days, it was not seen as something worth significant care. Homelessness was a transient condition experienced by few. It did not receive much priority, partly because it was not so great a problem, dwarfed, as it was, by sectarian and terrorist strife and the curse of unemployment. One curse is still with us, while the other is not so prevalent.
We can ignore homelessness no longer, and the Committee for Social Development, under its Chairperson, my Colleague Fred Cobain, has not been ignoring it. The figures are so serious that they demand our attention. I am sure that Members are bored hearing how serious the matter is, but I want to put the figures into a different context. The proportion of those who are homeless in Northern Ireland is double the figure in England and Wales and higher than that in Scotland, so this constituent nation of the United Kingdom has the most serious homelessness problem.
The worst thing is that the figures are rising. That is due partly to social disturbance caused by the problems we have with living together, which I mentioned earlier. However, that is only part of the reason. Homelessness here is rising by 15% a year. Some of the reasons for that are obvious and derive from the basic underlying problems of this society for which there are no simple solutions. If there were, we would not be engaged in the current political process. However, the lack of sufficient affordable social housing is not a problem of the same order. It is not beyond the competence of the Minister, the Department and the Assembly to at least bring Northern Ireland’s proportion of households presenting as homeless into line with that in England and Wales.
When I took over the Housing Executive after coming back from India, it had 240,000 social housing units, and it is now responsible for 120,000. Fewer than 1,500 — 1,200 is the average — new houses are being built by housing associations each year, while 5,000 houses are being made available under the right to buy. I support that right, and every Member in the Chamber probably supports it at heart, but those houses are lost to those who require social housing. There is an annual deficit of around 4,000 houses available for social need — and that is quite a large number in this Province.
Mr ONeill referred to youth homelessness, which has increased by 15% since the Assembly first met. Most of those who present as homeless are accepted as being eligible for housing, despite many of them being from vulnerable backgrounds in some kind of social care. Single young men are especially affected and are most likely to be homeless for a considerable period because they are not eligible for priority housing.
While the Committee, with the exception of Mr ONeill, is not recommending that priority status be extended automatically to people purely on the grounds of their youth, I would like to see special help for those from a care background, who are statistically more likely to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Their needs must be assessed in detail before they leave care — whether in an institution, jail or borstal — and I am concerned that that is not happening adequately at present. Growing up in care and moving to homelessness is not the kind of start in life that is conducive to living a worthwhile, lawful existence.
Our report makes sensible, coherent recommendations. It sets out a revised definition of homelessness to include all those who do not have a safe and accessible place to stay. It also recommends a much more interdisciplinary approach to those presenting as homeless. The Housing Executive must have the lead role, of course, but it is important that other inputs be received and taken into account in determining an individual’s or family’s needs. Care conferences — conferring between the various bodies with responsibility — have a valuable part to play.
The needs of homeless youths require a specific approach that takes into account their particular needs and problems. Those young people who are not eligible for priority status must have an adequate referral system that takes account of their situation and does not leave them outside the door of the Housing Executive office with nowhere to turn. The back streets of London, Dublin or Manchester are no place for them.
Looking after the needs of youths coming out of care is what might be called a preventative strategy. We can learn from best practice in Scotland. We need to set targets. However, there is also an onus on those presenting as homeless. Many of them need training in the life skills that we take for granted if they are not to become recurrently homeless. Basic financial management and the prioritisation of housing costs in a household budget may seem of obvious importance. For some, however, that approach needs to be taught, as Mr ONeill reminded us; it does not come naturally.
The French foyer system, which has been adopted here on a small scale, provides simple, affordable dwellings, each of which accommodates four or five young homeless people. Those young people are trained in homemaking, and, if they wish, trained in an employment skill. One such scheme operates in Derry and two in Belfast. The Department for Social Development will shortly carry out a study of those schemes to find out whether the system could be extended.
Above all, we need a sustained building programme of affordable social housing. We read eternally of new apartment developments in exclusive locations, many of which, I might add, are white elephants. There are not enough Executive — with a capital "E" — homes. The volume of new-build social housing is critically low, given the rapid increase in our population compared with other regions of the UK. Northern Ireland has the highest population growth in the UK. Unless we tackle the situation with political will married to adequate resources, our homelessness problem will continue to grow. The Committee saw special merit in specialised transitional housing units to deal with disadvantaged groups such as young people and those emerging from care into the community.
Homelessness is no longer a Cinderella subject. The Committee for Social Development, on which I am proud to serve under the chairmanship of my Colleague Fred Cobain, has made homelessness a real issue. The situation is verging on a crisis. I am sorry that the new housing Bill has taken so long to emerge. I look forward to the Assembly’s debate on it, with reference to the needs and priorities identified by the Committee. Above all, I hope that the Minister recognises the need to prevent homelessness. Only through a proactive policy will we do any more than alleviate the worst effects of homelessness on the homeless themselves and on the whole community. I support the motion.

Mr John Tierney: I support the motion. We are privileged to have had the involvement of two Deputy Chairpersons of the Committee for Social Development, each of whom worked on half of the report. I welcome the Minister’s presence, and I thank the Committee staff for their help.
Members mentioned their constituencies, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope that you will allow me to mention mine. There is an increase in the incidence of homelessness in my constituency, where new houses are being allocated either this week or next week. Homeless people require 180 points to qualify for priority housing. Someone who presents himself as homeless will be given 70 points; however, other priority needs must be demonstrated in order to acquire 180 points.
A young single female parent with two children, one of whom has a health problem, is homeless in my constituency. She suffers from depression. Most GPs will tell you that many people who have been on the homeless list for a year, as many in my constituency have been, will suffer from depression.
That is why I support the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development when he says that the effects of homelessness should be the responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning. The Health Department has an obvious responsibility because the health of a young mother with two children who has to live in, and move between, bed and breakfasts and hostels will suffer.
Some people say that there is adequate hostel provision in the Derry area — and there is good hostel provision — but the hostels are full, and those people who cannot get into a hostel have to go to bed-and-breakfast accommodation which, as my Colleague Mr ONeill said, they have to vacate after breakfast. If a young mother with two children is faced with that experience, Members will understand how much she and her children will have suffered at the end of a year or more.
The waiting list for houses is growing because of the lack of new build. In the past the Assembly has debated Housing Executive cutbacks. At one time the Housing Executive’s budget was a high priority, but its importance has slipped. That priority should be reintroduced to sort out homelessness. I am glad that the Committee for Social Development has prioritised the issue. I know that the Minister will give homelessness the same priority, because any time that he has spoken to the Committee, or to concerned individuals, he has been positive about the issue.
It is not only the Minister for Social Development who is responsible for the homeless. Other Ministers must become involved to ensure that adequate funding is granted to housing when the subject is discussed by the Executive. Social and affordable housing is required, but it will not be the answer to every problem because, as Mr ONeill has said, homeless people face many problems. However, if there were enough houses, the homeless waiting list would not increase year in, year out. If things continue as they are and the same funding is provided by the Housing Executive, there is no reason to believe that the numbers on the waiting list will decrease. I hope that the report’s recommendations will go some way towards ensuring that proper funding will be given to housing and that a decrease in the waiting list will be visible.
Other issues and Departments are given priority, so serious consideration must be given to the issue of homelessness. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Chairperson of the Health Committee have spoken about the prevention of homelessness. If the Assembly is serious about prevention, this is where it begins. If a young mother and her two children are moved from house to house and from hostel to bed and breakfast, what must be the condition of their health?
Homeless people often cannot cope in hostels, and sometimes they are taken in by friends or family members. However, that can lead to overcrowding, which is also difficult to cope with. If a homeless person decides to move out from a friend’s or family member’s house to try to better themselves, or because of circumstances in that house, they are classed as intentionally homeless. Therefore, the homeless person — and in the case of my example, a mother with two children — is classed as intentionally homeless and is placed at the bottom of the waiting list. If the person is not classed as homeless, he or she may have to wait a couple of years to be housed. Where does that leave the young mother and her two children?
12.00
I make that point because it is an example of the kind of case that comes to my office and to the Housing Executive. The Housing Executive should be the body to recommend who should be regarded as homeless; it has been used to working with the issue. The record shows an increase of 15% in the level of homelessness. However, many people are not put on the homeless list, so the situation is worse than has been stated today.
I congratulate the people who made oral and written submissions. It shows the urgency of the problem of homelessness and the priority that they give to it. It is important that Members do the same. Most Members have sat on councils where they have fought and argued for proper funding. They are now in a position to get that funding and to get the relevant Ministers to join with the Minister for Social Development to push for proper funding. I urge the Minister for Social Development to consider making his case to the Executive. I say that not for political point scoring — the Minister makes an excellent case for homeless people and for housing in general. However, if he were to make that case to the Executive, I am sure that the proper funding would be made available.
When the Committee was preparing the report, it was clear that one of the problems over the past few years has been a decrease in the funding available for housing. If that trend continues, we will never come to terms with homelessness problems. In some cases, it is not being treated as a priority, because we do not see cardboard boxes on the streets like those in London and elsewhere. However, as Sir John Gorman pointed out, the figures show that Northern Ireland has the highest rate of homelessness. We are lucky here that friends and relatives step in, but it is getting to the stage where cardboard boxes may be seen on our streets. If that happened, the matter might be treated with the seriousness it deserves, but by then it would be too late because the amount of money required will be even greater. If we get the money that is needed now, we can prevent the cardboard box scenario and stop young people sleeping on the streets. That is what we face unless we take this matter seriously and allocate proper funding to housing.
I congratulate the Committee members who participated in the lengthy deliberations. The Committee Clerk made sure that we went through the subject bit by bit to get this right. I hope that the Minister and the Executive will take the recommendations on board so that the proper funding will be made available. Also I hope that the Minister will join us in supporting the recommendations: no doubt he will. I commend the report to the House.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the Committee’s recommendations and congratulate it on its work. I want to highlight some of the recommendations and points that have come to my attention.
The recommendations are relevant and helpful, and the need for them has never been more apparent than it is today. I want to highlight some of the facts and figures on homelessness in Northern Ireland. Sometimes statistics can prove what you want them to, but these statistics paint a dark and stark picture of the needs of people in the Province.
The number of people presenting as homeless to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has increased by 15·5%. That is due to increasing social pressures, street violence, deprivation, and — one of the big issues — the lack of affordable and accessible accommodation.
Single people make up a large proportion of those who present themselves as homeless, and they do not always receive the number of points that will adequately reflect their needs or priority. The current points system should be changed — and the quicker, the better. If people are coming to my advice centre about the issue, then others must be going to advice centres across the Province.
Single homeless people can wait a long time, sometimes months, without any hope of accommodation. Homelessness, or potential homelessness, should receive sufficient points to ensure prompt housing. When people come to my advice centre with, for example, 100 to 130 points and we cannot house them, I ask myself, "What is wrong when people have so many points but cannot get housing?" It is particularly worrying.
Several people in my constituency have been in hostels for 12 months while waiting for housing. It must cost the Housing Executive a small fortune to accommodate people on a short-term basis. It is unacceptable and unbelievable in this age. It is unfair for a young family, whether it is a mother with two children, or a mother and father with two children, to live in such accommodation. Fair points allocation would move them through the system long before 12 months pass, and that issue must be addressed. The Minister has indicated that we will examine the issue soon.
I want to give another example — I like to use examples because they help to clarify the issues. In many cases hostel accommodation is unavailable in the areas where people live and where their children go to school. Instead, it is available in places that are completely divorced from their area. For example, people looking for hostel accommodation in Newtownards are being told that there is no accommodation available there, or in Bangor, and that they will have to go to Downpatrick or Larne. It is incredible that people whose children go to schools in the Newtownards area have to find hostel accommodation somewhere else.
Another issue that came to my attention is that people have to go to hostel accommodation in parts of the Province where they do not feel safe. Hostel accommodation can become "hostile" accommodation, and it is a problem for some people.
Young people are especially vulnerable. We have all read the briefs from some organisations, which show that there has been a 50% increase in homelessness in young people in the past four years. Unfortunately, the Housing Executive does not always consider young people to be vulnerable because of their age. However, it should; the social needs of young people show that there is real need. The legislation should be extended to include the 16- to 18-year-old bracket solely on age grounds, and many of us would agree with that.
There is a problem about private accommodation, and that problem occurs regularly. I will use examples again — so forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Minimal private accommodation is available in Ards borough, and what is available is at an exorbitant rent. In many cases, the rent for private two-bedroom accommodation can be between £400 and £500 a week. We all know how housing benefit works, but it cannot cover that level of rent, especially for people who are on other benefits or have special financial circumstances.
The Housing Executive can make a discretionary payment. However, shortfalls occur, especially in rent payments for tenants in private accommodation. The housing benefit system and the availability of discretionary payments need to be reviewed to help people with specific needs or financial problems.
The intentionality clause is sometimes difficult to understand. The Housing Executive decided that some of my constituents became homeless intentionally. Circumstances can, and do, change, not always through the fault of the applicant. The system should be more flexible as regards intentionality.
Recommendation 9, which states that the Housing Executive should be the lead organisation, is an appropriate and helpful suggestion that would focus attention. The Executive was responsible for all housing until a short time ago. It makes sense to allow the Housing Executive to take the lead role in implementing an agreed strategy.
Social housing is a major issue, given the number of people who are looking for a house but cannot get one. Recommendation 21 refers to social housing provision and calls for a review of new-build policy. Such a review would be crucial to ensure that appropriate changes take place in my area. Recently, I asked the Minister for Social Development how many people were on the housing waiting list in the Ards Borough Council area. The number has risen dramatically over recent years, mainly because insufficient accommodation is available. In my discussions with the Housing Executive over the past few weeks, officers said that they could not remember there having been such a slow turnover of housing as there has been during the past month to six weeks. Some applicants with a high number of points cannot get a house; that must frustrate them, because accommodation is normally given to people in that points bracket.
Recommendation 21 states that land must be made available for new-build social housing so that accessible and affordable accommodation can be built in Northern Ireland. Housing associations are not slow to pinpoint or try to obtain land. Unfortunately, however, they do not have as many financial resources as developers or private housing associations, so they cannot buy as much land. The legislation must be changed so that new-build social housing can be addressed as a separate category.
I congratulate the Minister, who has worked hard to deal with the housing problem. Mr Tierney said that if the Minister were a Housing Executive official, much more money would be made available for housing. If Mr Tierney and Housing Executive officials already know about the housing need, they too should address the matter. The Minister and the Committee have worked hard, and the report’s recommendations will address the problem.
Recommendation 22 refers to the need for housing units, especially in rural areas. It is often forgotten that not all housing is situated in towns or villages; some of it is in the countryside. I have been approached by many constituents who want a house in the countryside, often because they were brought up there and want to return to their roots. It is unfortunate that there is no strategy to provide rural housing; therefore I commend recommendation 22, which addresses the needs of those who want to live in the countryside.
I commend the report; it contains some good points.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I join other Members in congratulating the Committee staff for enabling us to carry out the investigation and the thorough way in which they looked for responses to it. The Committee took a wide-ranging look at the entire issue of homelessness and how to eradicate it. The Committee received several submissions, both oral and written. Some responses were very honest, forthright and straightforward; the Committee needed to hear those in order to make the recommendations in the report.
My Colleagues on the Committee for Social Development, and others, have outlined many of the problems that homelessness creates and many of its causes. There is, as we all know, a strong correlation between homelessness and mental illness. A vicious cycle is also created between alcohol and drug abuse and violence. Support services have been unable to cope with people who have been labelled as unco-operative or who make certain lifestyle choices, creating a cycle between prison, hostels and the streets.
Those presumptions must be challenged. They are a cop-out; a way of rationalising and making excuses for the level of homelessness in the Six Counties. There must be a safety net, a link between social services, medical services and the Housing Executive. Educational support for adults is needed to help people to rebuild shattered lives, regain confidence and earn a living. We must also enable people to acquire the skills to run and keep a home. More health education is needed, as is more awareness in the health agencies of homelessness and its detrimental effect on health.
I welcome pilot schemes and initiatives by the Department of Education to help with peer education. The Department has brought young people into schools to talk to their peers about homelessness, how a person might become homeless and the difficulties of living on the streets, which are often glossed over. Young people can often romanticise the notion of being homeless, but bringing other young people in to talk to students about the harsh reality of homelessness and how it impacts upon them has been a big help. I congratulate the Minister of Education for introducing that initiative and encourage other Ministers to do likewise.
We must also bring services to homeless people, as they often cannot avail of services on a 9-to-5 basis. Services must cater to people’s needs. If services are provided but not used, they are often removed. We must ensure that the services that are provided are easily accessible and that homeless people avail of them. A more progressive definition of homelessness must be developed. There is legislation on the horizon from the Minister for Social Development, Nigel Dodds, but Sinn Féin will try to ensure that the best definition is arrived at to make sure that people do not fall through the safety net.
There must be an immediate increase in the number of available hostel beds. That came through strongly in compiling the Committee’s report. We must ensure that people are not caught in the traps created by the definition of homelessness. Initiatives such as the one in Strabane have identified a specific need and catered for it accordingly. More funding is needed for that type of hostel accommodation. That kind of imaginative approach has been lacking, and we must ensure that we think outside the box and come up with new ideas to try to completely eradicate homelessness.
The issue of catchment areas must also be addressed. Homelessness, by its very nature, means that people drift from one area to another and can end up falling between two stools. Now that we have started to get rid of the loopholes, we must create a watertight safety net to ensure that people cannot fall out of sight and to ensure that people get the services that they need. Let us take as an example the reduction in the number of psychiatric beds in the Twenty-six Counties in the 1980s from 20,000 to 2,000. That reduction, which was mirrored in the Six Counties in the Thatcher era, was staggering and created huge problems.
More psychiatric beds alone are not the answer. We must ensure that those leaving hospital are given appropriate accommodation and, more importantly, support. That does not happen now. People with varied problems are often placed in environments which are not good for them, and they cannot cope. The effects of the ending of transitional housing benefit must also be examined, as must the introduction of the Supporting People programme and its impact on the number of homeless people.
We must deal too with young homeless women. The increase in the number of women with mental illness has been well documented, but the number of women facing domestic violence has increased. They have to flee unsafe relationships, and it was clear to the Committee that hostel facilities specifically for women are inadequate. We need accommodation which is secure and safe from violent partners, and other hostel residents for women and children. Women’s Aid does sterling work, but more funding is needed to ensure that such women have a safe haven.
Rural homelessness is often hidden. People feel isolated because there are no facilities at all and end up sleeping on friends’ floors. The extent of rural homelessness does not show up in the statistics. The levels of unfitness in rural areas must be investigated. I have previously said here that Fermanagh’s level is 17·5%, and tackling that would lower the number of homeless people.
Furthermore, we have young people who leave care and find themselves homeless. There are no support services to help them get on their feet. More imaginative ways of helping such young people to find and keep a home must be considered. Eileen Bell referred to the event earlier this year at which we spoke to several children in care. They asked about the likes of the cost of a television licence, a huge expense to a 17- or 18-year old who is trying to get by on a small amount of money. We often take such things for granted, but children who leave care have more problems maintaining a home.
There must be a holistic approach to eradicating homelessness. It is not for the Department for Social Development and its Committee alone to investigate homelessness and its effects. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and Personnel must examine the position. Funding must be made available, and I echo John Tierney’s call for the Minister to ask the Executive for increased funding to ensure that the number of homeless people is reduced. It is an indictment of the Assembly that the number continues to rise. We must ensure that that trend is reversed and that homelessness is eradicated.

Mr Ivan Davis: I shall be brief. Although I am not a Member of the Committee for Social Development, I firmly believe that it is right for all Members to support this report. I thank the Committee for Social Development, led by Fred Cobain, and everyone who was involved in the research.
I am shocked by the startling homelessness statistics, which show that there are homeless people throughout Northern Ireland. The death rate for rough sleepers under the age of 30 is 40 times the Northern Ireland average, and their lives are characterised by ill health and disability.
The report highlights an increase in the number of homeless people, which is extremely worrying. That suggests that the present system does not help the situation and is not, therefore, satisfactory. New legislation that will get to the core of the problem is needed. In days gone by, we could have blamed direct rule, but, with the devolved Administration, we no longer have that excuse.
It is also worrying to note that Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of homelessness than other parts of the United Kingdom. From a moral perspective, everyone should acknowledge the problems that the report highlights. The homelessness issue is not simplistic, and, therefore, any proposed measures must be carefully considered. As the Committee Chairperson said, it is not only a matter for the Minister for Social Development, but one that should involve the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister of Education and the Minister for Employment and Learning. A co-ordinated, well-organised and proactive campaign is needed. The Council of Europe’s study group on homelessness recognised that fact. It stated that
"If shelter is not accompanied by a range of social measures and the rapid return to housing, the situation of homelessness is likely to be recurrent".
Homelessness also affects people’s health, with 30% to 50% of homeless people having mental health problems. Therefore, the Mental Health Commission must become involved. However, as Members know, that group is underfunded and overstretched. Homeless people often find it difficult to register with a GP or a dentist. Undoubtedly, that is linked to people’s perceptions of the homeless, thus an educational campaign would be helpful. Therefore, I welcome recommendation 20 of the report.
There must be appropriate legislation to minimise the problem of homelessness. Since the Assembly was established, there have been calls for legislation. However, nothing has come before the House, but, as Members have been told, that may change in the next few weeks. The Minister for Social Development understands the seriousness of the issue, and I welcome any legislation aimed at tackling the root of the problem.
The sitting was suspended at 12.29 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair) —

Dr Joe Hendron: I am sure that Members recall the name of Fred West, the multiple murderer. Many young people, and probably many more about whom we did not know, lost their lives. It is important to point out that those people were young and homeless. West’s crimes are significant because they represent the pinnacle of evil. Many thousands of young people may not quite meet the same fate as Fred West’s victims, but their suffering and poor health, which they continue to endure, are important.
I congratulate the Committee for Social Development on its excellent report. I also congratulate the Chairperson of that Committee, Mr Fred Cobain, on writing to me as Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety inviting my Committee to participate in the inquiry. My Committee’s contribution was relevant.
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety welcomes the report. It is useful and timely, and it addresses the real needs of a vulnerable section of our community. The sign of a caring society is the extent to which it meets the needs of all sections of the community, including the homeless. Several of the recommendations are particularly relevant to the Health Committee. We are now dealing with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which addresses the needs of vulnerable young people who leave care. The Committee has welcomed the action that the Bill proposes to ensure that suitable accommodation is provided for those young people. Departments and agencies must liaise with each other to ensure that accommodation is made available.
The report proposes that there should be a revised definition of homelessness. I would welcome that.
"The absence of a safe and accessible place to stay"
is a good definition that can be recommended.
Recommendation 3 mentions a "‘case conferencing system’". Wearing my GP’s hat, and as one who participated in many case conferences about child abuse over the years at which social workers, community nurses and others were present, I welcome that recommendation. Case conferencing is the most effective way to deal with that matter. I strongly welcome the case conferencing system and encourage its establishment.
I do not like the expression "intentionally homeless." Some people are intentionally homeless, but that requires definition. Young people leave their homes for many reasons; perhaps there are problems in the home, or the young person could have their own problems.
I have nothing but praise for the outstanding work that the Housing Executive has done. Its former chief executive, Sir John Gorman, is present in the Chamber and spoke earlier in the debate. If somebody is homeless the Housing Executive does its best, but if a primary-care worker, such as a GP, wants to involve a social worker for assessment purposes, I often find that social services say that the request must come from the Housing Executive. That makes that principle farcical. The people with whom you deal in the Housing Executive are not social workers; that is an important point.
Doctors working for the Eastern Health Board write reports based on a GP’s letter or another document that has come before them, even though they may not have seen the person involved. That is important if we consider the idea of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Social Development and other relevant Departments working hand-in-hand.
The Minister of Health wrote to Mr Cobain drawing attention to ‘Investing for Health’, which acknowledges the negative impact of homelessness on health. "Negative impact" is an understatement. The Minister goes on to say that it is well known that surveys have shown high levels of mental illness among people living in temporary shelters or sleeping rough. They have complex needs. ‘Investing for Health’ goes on and on about that.
One of the most important parts of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill provides for personal advisers for young people leaving care. I appreciate that homelessness relates to everyone who is homeless, but I will concentrate on young people. Personal advisers, who will be appointed by the relevant trusts, will play a key role in helping young people towards adulthood through education and training, and will help to prevent homelessness.
Recommendation 6 of the report states:
"The Committee also recommends that the individual needs of children leaving care must be carefully examined before making a final determination on priority status."
The report also goes on to state the need to ensure that
"the provisions contained in the Children Leaving Care Bill and any legislative proposals relating to housing and homelessness are compatible and beneficial to these vulnerable young people."
I assure the members of the Committee for Social Development and the Minister that the clauses in the Bill are most relevant to the issue.
A young person may not have parents, for one reason or another, or the parents may not be available. Therefore, it will be important that the Housing Executive and all relevant authorities work through the personal adviser to help the young person towards adulthood.
The Bill also contains provision for a pathway plan for the young person who is being released into the community. The plan will cover education and training, but it will also help to prevent homelessness. The plan will cover the young person’s health up to the age of 21. Members can see that it will be important that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department for Social Development work closely together in this aspect.
It is vital that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety define what is meant by "suitable accommodation" for young people leaving care. It is also vital that landlords be suitable and care for this vulnerable section of our community. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be scrutinising the actions of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the coming months to ensure that guidance to boards and trusts addresses those accommodation needs. That will be the key to preventing homelessness. Many of the young people have low self-esteem.
Clause 6 in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill deals with the transfer of benefits from the Social Security Agency to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Many of the bodies that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety spoke to, including the National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children, were anxious that the clause should be withdrawn. However, the Committee, having discussed the matter with departmental officials, understands why it is necessary to transfer benefits — the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be taking a parental role for those young people. I am not entering into that debate at the moment. The Committee is aware of the issue but has not made up its mind as to whether to accept clause 6, and the Minister is aware of the matter.
The Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and other relevant bodies, such as the Health Promotion Agency, need to be involved and need to liaise on the matter. Health boards and trusts have a major role to play in promoting health.
Earlier, John Tierney spoke about the new system for borrowing money that was announced after the visit from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although it will be a loan, a great deal of money will be made available that should be used to tackle the problem of homelessness.
Although I welcome the entire report by the Committee for Social Development, I am not happy with recommendation 9, which states:
"The Committee recommends that an integrated inter-Departmental and inter-agency approach to homelessness is developed".
I could not disagree with that. However, the recommendation continues by stating that the approach should be
"led and managed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and that work on this should begin immediately."
I am a great supporter of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I also support the idea that an interdepartmental group with expertise in that field should be set up. In particular, such a group should include the Department for Social Development and the Department of Heath, Social Services and Public Safety. However, I totally disagree with the proposal that that group should be led and managed by the Housing Executive. I have nothing but respect for the Housing Executive, but so many professionals would need to be involved and so much expertise would be required. The Housing Executive would need to employ many professionals in the fields of health, social development and other areas, so I do not see it as the leader of such a group.
As a public representative, I have been dealing with the Housing Executive for more years than I care to count. I am glad that the Minister is present when I say that I would prefer the people with expertise to be brought together in an interdepartmental group that could work side by side with the Housing Executive. Some might argue that it does not matter who leads whom, but the Housing Executive, which is not a departmental body, should not lead the group. I agree with the spirit, but not the substance, of recommendation 9.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I commend the Committee for Social Development, of which I am not a member. However, what I have seen of the report suggests that it is a solid production, and everyone involved should be commended.
This is a critical subject, and the report, like other sources, such as the Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland, communicates well the seriousness of the problem. As Members have pointed out, the number of homeless people has increased by about one quarter. The incidence of homelessness in Northern Ireland, despite traditional perceptions, is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The true position may be worse than the official statistics indicate because the nature of the problem means that some cases of homelessness are concealed.
I agree with paragraph 1.6, which praises the efforts of the full range of concerned bodies and agencies, including, on the statutory side, the Housing Executive, the health and social services boards, trusts and agencies, and, on the voluntary and community side, a variety of charities and church organisations. I also agree with paragraph 1.6 that, given the seriousness of the problem, there should be a redoubling of efforts by the various players in that field.
Homelessness is one of the worst, if not the worst, form of social exclusion. In part, that is because it can be the root cause of other types of poverty and social exclusion, such as illness, unemployment, or the inability to progress with education.
I strongly agree with recommendation 18, which refers to the need for a preventative strategy. It is better for all concerned, and more cost effective in the long run, if we prevent persons from becoming homeless in the first place. Throughout the recommendations there is a correct emphasis on this strategy’s being interdepartmental. Indeed, in the speeches so far we have heard evidence of that. This is not just a matter for the Committee for Social Development, as we heard from the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
I also agree with recommendation 19, which is about building up the life skills of individuals who, sadly, are homeless. This will enable homeless people to make the transition to a settled form of independent life, which can be difficult, and provide a general improvement in their level of training, education, and qualifications. That touches on another interdepartmental aspect, as it brings the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning into play.
Regarding the training and educational aspect of dealing with homelessness, I agree with my Colleague Sir John Gorman and commend the work of the Simon Community on the foyer initiative. There is one foyer in south Belfast and three in other locations across the Province. The south Belfast foyer is home to 42 persons in the 17- to 25-year-old age group. The interesting feature of the foyer arrangement is the combination of sheltered housing with a hands-on, on-site, personalised approach to training, which appears to ease the transition of people into the labour market. They can eventually stand on their own feet, hold down a job and, in turn, pay for accommodation and keep themselves, which is the ideal that we should be striving for. The foyer initiative is very successful in putting and keeping people in permanent, stable employment.
Another possibility, which is not included in the report’s recommendations, is quite radical and also interdepartmental. It relates to the provision of an adequate degree of additional social housing. Sir John touched on this and on the reduction in the number of buildings available. To turn that around, we should consider introducing some sort of preference into the planning process in favour of property developers who agree to set aside some of the land, and, by implication, some of the housing, in new developments for housing-association type dwellings.
I strongly support the motion and commend this report.

Mr Sammy Wilson: At this stage of the debate most of the recommendations in the report have probably been touched on by most Members, and, therefore, I want to concentrate on only a couple of points.
First, the Committee for Social Development approached this subject in a balanced way. There are people who would love to make an industry out of the unfortunate circumstances that homeless people find themselves in. When looking at homelessness, we must ensure that we look at it in a way that is sympathetic to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the worst of all situations of not having a home, with all that is attached to that. Other Members have already spoken about the fact that losing or not having a home is not the sum total of disadvantage — it is the start of disadvantage because so many other things flow from it. Therefore, the Assembly must address genuine homelessness in Northern Ireland.
Much has been said about the number of homeless people. However, we must reinforce the distinction between those who are homeless and those who present themselves as such. The number of people who present themselves as homeless has increased a good deal; so has the number of those who are judged to be genuinely homeless. The situation is not unique to Northern Ireland; it applies across the United Kingdom.
A primary cause of homelessness must be considered: almost 2,000 people who present themselves as homeless do so because of acts of intimidation. The graph contained in the report shows that since the so-called end of the terrorist war, the number of people who have presented themselves as homeless has surged by almost 15%. Much of that increase is due to intimidation.
Members of Sinn Féin have spoken today about the plight of the homeless. This morning I spoke to a group of people who represent one street in Belfast. Half of the residents of that street now live with relatives, in hotels or in boarded-up houses. They want out because of intimidation organised by Sinn Féin. It is one thing for Members to complain about homelessness; it is another when their associates are actively involved each night in putting people — including families with young children and people in their 80s — out on the streets.
Two Sunday nights ago, I sat in the Salvation Army hall at the end of the Newtownards Road; it was full of people who had been put out of their houses. Six of those people were in their 80s. At 3.00 am they were waiting to find somewhere to put their heads for the night, because for the third night running their homes had come under a constant barrage. They finally had to leave, for their own safety, when petrol bombs and blast bombs were thrown at their homes and shooting started.
We have a duty to deal with the problems of the homeless. However, we must also ensure that we do not ally ourselves with those who are responsible, and that we are not ourselves responsible for such unfortunate circumstances. Mobs are orchestrated by Members who sit here today, including the Deputy Chairperson, who in her winding-up speech will probably condemn homelessness.
I was keen that recommendation 4 be included in the report. There was much pressure on us to include 16- to 18-year-olds in the homelessness legislation. I understand that many young people become homeless due to unfortunate circumstances. Nevertheless, the Assembly has a duty to ensure that it does not introduce social legislation that encourages or makes it easier for families to break up. We heard evidence that many youngsters fall out with their parents. I am sure that all Members have experienced such cases in their constituency advice centres. Youngsters often go through a rough patch with their parents, because of their age, et cetera.
We must not present an easy way of resolving family conflicts by taking on a statutory responsibility to rehouse those youngsters — many of them do not have the skills to live by themselves. Equally, we have an obligation to protect youngsters who are genuinely being put in danger because of circumstances at home. The recommendations get the balance right. Recommendation 4 states that
"whilst the rights of individuals must be respected, this must not be at the expense of contributing to the breakdown of the family as a stable and caring unit."
I am pleased that that recommendation is in the report. The balance to that recommendation comes when young people present themselves as homeless and there are allegations that they want to leave home because of abuse. Recommendation 5 states that there should be a customised approach for dealing with youngsters, including case conferences in which all of the interests can be discussed so that there is a full picture of the problems facing those young people.
The report is very useful, and it reflects much of what the Housing Executive has already accepted as the way forward for dealing with homelessness. I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Jim Wilson: I call Mrs Annie Courtney. You have about three minutes, Mrs Courtney.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I will be brief and cut out half of what I was going to say.
I welcome the report. As the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has said, the report is timely because of our Committee’s involvement with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. Such young people are not only young vulnerable adults; they are leaving care without any training in household or financial management.
Recommendations 5 to 8 are particularly important. Recommendation 5 states:
"The Committee further recommends that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should establish a specific, customised approach in assessing priority needs and dealing with young people presenting as homeless."
That is particularly relevant to members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety who are considering the Children (Leaving Care) Bill.
Recommendations 11, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are also important. Recommendation 11 states that
"the new strategy and action plan should include proposals for a common ‘Code of Practice’ for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and those partner organisations dealing with the homeless."
Recommendation 13 states that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should pursue high standards of training for those dealing with the homeless. Recommendations 16, 17 and 18 deal with the out-of-hours service and a speedy independent appeals system, and state that the overall goal should be to reduce the number of homeless people.
Members have highlighted recommendation 19 as being particularly significant to young people leaving care who will struggle to cope if they do not have the correct support in home economics and financial management.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety said that clause 6 of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill was causing the Committee concern because it dealt with the exclusion of young people from benefits. We will be having further discussion on that as we have not come to a decision.
Members have already referred to the problems of people living in rural areas. I welcome recommendation 22, which highlights the need for transitional housing units to enable the Department for Social Development to respond positively. I agree with recommendation 23, which states that resources should be transferred to the Department for Social Development.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Committee’s continuing interest in housing matters. I commend the work that it and many others in the voluntary sector and the Housing Executive are engaged in to ensure that policies meet housing need and provide good housing services.
That is the thrust of the legislative proposals that form the backdrop to the Committee’s report and tie in with what my Department has demonstrated is an urgent matter that requires urgent action.
Many individuals and organisations have a range of views on how best to deal with homelessness. That is healthy, and I welcome it; I am pleased that they took time and showed their interest by contributing to the consultation exercise. I welcome the fact that, generally, the review’s principle recommendations are in line with our current policy and legislative proposals. Members will appreciate that in the short time available since the report was submitted to the Department, we have not been able to consider it fully and discuss the detail of the recommendations. That also applies to the comments of Members today, to which I have listened with interest. I shall give proper consideration to the report and the comments of Members in the debate, and I shall make my views known in due course.
In the meantime, I shall say a few words about the report’s main recommendations. Although most of us enjoy a stable and comfortable living environment, that is not the experience of those who are homeless. Several Members have pointed out just how horrendous it is for individuals and families in that situation. The number of households presenting as homeless to the Housing Executive and voluntary sector organisations that deal with the problem is growing. Factors such as relationship breakdown continue to play a major part.
Sammy Wilson said that not everyone who presents as homeless is accepted under the legislation as such — as someone to whom full duty of priority rehousing is owed by the Housing Executive. Mr Wilson also made the point that 2,000 of the cases currently presented as homeless are due to intimidation, and, increasingly, the threat of intimidation is causing people to leave their homes. That is not something that housing providers can address effectively. The deplorable incidents of recent weeks, which continue albeit on a smaller scale, have put a tremendous burden on all the organisations that work to help the homeless, and they do nothing to build communities or help those who are homeless for other reasons. In fact, they do the opposite. They reduce the number of houses available for the others and increase the waiting time to be rehoused.
I am encouraged, however, by the willingness of those involved in the care of homeless people to meet the challenges that face them, as exemplified by their response to this review and to the recent comprehensive review of services to homeless people by the Housing Executive. Improvements will be made as implementation of the reviews’ recommendations begins.
I also hope that the extent of the problem and the profile that it is rightly attracting will translate into the additional resources that the reviews suggest will be required to deal effectively with it. I welcome the comments from various parts of the House that show that Members are willing to support an allocation of extra resources to deal with housing in general and the problems associated with homelessness in particular. I hope that that will translate into action, as opposed to mere rhetoric, when it comes to votes on the Floor of the Assembly.
I do not have time to deal in detail with all 23 recommendations, as they cover a wide range of issues from funding to definitions and the need for multiagency and cross-departmental actions. To agree the definition of what constitutes homelessness is crucial to the success of any strategy to tackle the problem. I welcome the Committee’s recommendations in that regard, and I hope that the Department will be able to achieve the necessary level of agreement.
The existing homelessness legislation, The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, defines a homeless person as a person with "no accommodation". That legislation also provides that applicants are homeless if they have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy it; if they cannot secure entry to it; or if occupation of that accommodation would lead to violence or threats of violence. The existing statutory definition of homelessness may already meet the Committee’s requirements. When presenting evidence to the Committee for Social Development, Mr McIntyre, chief executive of the Housing Executive said:
"Legislative provision in Northern Ireland is generous compared to that of Great Britain. Great Britain’s legislation is intended to catch up with that of Northern Ireland and to reinstate its own — as it stood before the changes made to it by the Conservative Government."
That evidence should be borne in mind when considering legislative changes.
I am glad that the Committee recognises that the solution to homelessness does not solely lie in the provision of new houses, a point that several Members made. Although that is an important part of the solution, the Department must tackle the source causes of homelessness and, in the process, endeavour where possible to keep families together. Several Members, including Mr Sammy Wilson, mentioned that recommendation, which is contained in volume 1 of the report as recommendation 4. Some Members suggested that there should be automatic acceptance of homeless young people as having priority need. I agree with what the Committee says on that point in recommendation 4.
The breakdown of relationships continues to be one of the main causes of homelessness, and it is hoped that the recommendations put forward by the Committee for increased education, awareness and provision of life skills training, as well as better sharing of information, will help to reduce the problem.
The recommendations are not solely for the Department for Social Development to consider. They will draw into the debate others who are at the forefront of such issues, not only in Government but in the voluntary sector. Many of the recommendations call for the Housing Executive to undertake a range of actions. Many of those actions are being undertaken and others have been put forward as part of the Housing Executive’s review of services. Members will be aware that in September 2001, the Housing Executive went out to consultation on developing a new approach to delivering homelessness services. That consultation period ended in December 2001. The main findings and recommendations of the Housing Executive’s review have been published and are widely known.
The recommendations provide a foundation on which to build and improve what is happening and is being proposed. The Housing Executive will want to take on board the Committee’s suggestions before it completes its implementation plan. That plan will be drawn up after the completion of its own review of services. The Housing Executive delayed the publication of that final implementation plan to allow time to take on board and consider what the Committee for Social Development had to say.
The Housing Executive has set targets to deal with homelessness. That is worthwhile, even if at times the targets are not met to the intended extent. Setting targets helps us to move forward, and by analysing why they are not met we can see where the problems lie. However, the targets must be achievable, and they should not be set simply because they look good — nor should we shy away from them because they may be hard to achieve. In considering the targets to be set, we must ensure that they are meaningful and that we have control over their achievement.
As part of the promoting social inclusion element of new targeting social need, my Department is taking the lead in a review of the difficulties faced by homeless people in getting access to services. The review will be cross-departmental and cross-sectoral. It will build on the review carried out by the Housing Executive and the review carried out by the Committee for Social Development. I will refer the report to a working group which will draw its members from a wide spectrum of interested parties and help to devise strategies for dealing with homelessness.
Experience and best practice elsewhere will be an aspect of the promoting social inclusion priority project on homelessness. As recognised by the last recommendation, the strategies that we devise must be properly funded. I will continue to try to attract the maximum resources that competing bids will allow.
Following the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative by the Chancellor during his recent visit to Belfast, I took the opportunity to bid for £10 million for 2003-04 for 150 additional units to accommodate homeless people. That bid, if successful, will materially assist in meeting a Programme for Government target that commits the Department for Social Development to ensure that everyone can get access to decent, affordable housing in the tenure of his choice. We will work with housing associations and enable them to assist the Housing Executive to meet its statutory obligation to deal with homelessness.
The bids are still being considered by the Department of Finance and Personnel, but when the Minister of Finance and Personnel reads the contributions from all sides about the great social problems that flow from this matter, and the priority which is attached to it across the Floor of the House and throughout Northern Ireland, I hope that the Department for Social Development will receive the additional funding necessary. Housing has an important part to play from New TSN and social inclusion perspectives in creating a stable home environment, better health and better employment opportunities.
Some Members, including Sir John Gorman, referred to providing more permanent homes as part of the solution. Some of the evidence that was given to the Committee said that providing someone with a permanent home is not the whole answer, and the Housing Executive also said that. Examples were given of people who left temporary accommodation for permanent accommodation only to re-present themselves as homeless later on. There are ways in which those issues must be tackled, not least through correct implementation of the Supporting People programme. It will affect single parents, young people, care leavers, people with mental illnesses or physical disabilities and victims of domestic violence. That should not be overlooked.
As I have said — and it is recognised by the Committee — providing a home is not always enough. An appropriate level of support must be given. The Supporting People arrangements will help to sustain and improve the existing support services for homeless people.
A major advantage of the proposed new arrangements is that they will combine the many disparate sources of funding into a single budget, and that will help to create a situation where the needs of the individual will be the most important factor.
I thank the Committee for taking the time to conduct the inquiry and for providing the recommendations. I also thank the organisations that provided evidence to the Committee to help it formulate its recommendations, and the Members who contributed to the debate. It has been pointed out, quite correctly, that this is not a matter for the Department for Social Development only; other Departments have a crucial role to play in preventing homelessness.
Several Members raised the issue of legislation, which, I hope, will soon be forthcoming. Several Members mentioned the housing Bill during the debate, and we will have an opportunity to discuss that soon during its Second Reading. The new Bill will impact on homelessness by redefining "homelessness" and "intentional homelessness" and will redefine the treatment of persons from abroad and those found guilty of antisocial behaviour. The proposals will not detract from the priority for rehousing that is currently given to homeless applicants who meet the statutory criteria for assistance under homelessness legislation.
Some Members had hoped that the new Bill would come before the House earlier and have mentioned delays — I share those concerns. As Minister for Social Development, I wish that the Bill had been before the House much earlier. It is not the fault of the Department for Social Development, my officials or myself that that has not been the case. Some Members, who are represented in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, might ask that particular Department some questions on how the process was conducted to get the draft Bill to this stage.
I am particularly concerned about housing and homelessness. That is why, as I have said, the Housing Executive’s review and these recommendations will play an important role in the proposals and in the forthcoming implementation plan. I look forward to Members’ continuing support as we seek the necessary resources to reduce the level of homelessness in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gerry Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have been a Member of the Committee for Social Development since its establishment in November 1999. I succeeded Michelle Gildernew as Deputy Chairperson just after the Committee had finished taking oral evidence from individuals and organisations in the second phase of the housing inquiry. I want to take the opportunity to say that the Chairperson, Fred Cobain, and the Deputy Chairperson at that time, Michelle Gildernew, have done a job that is second to none.
On 19 March, the Committee was instrumental in instigating a debate in the Assembly on the implications of introducing a new system for funding housing support costs. That debate is clearly connected to the present one.
I understand from the Minister that we will have an opportunity in the next few weeks to begin our examination of the long awaited housing Bill.
It is right that housing should feature on the political agenda and in the social conscience of the Assembly, but is that enough? Fred Cobain and others pointed out that the Executive should pay more attention to what the Committee says about the need to keep investment in housing at the correct levels. I was heartened and impressed by the candid and honest views expressed by many of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee. All of those bodies were closely involved in one way or another with the homeless.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions to the debate. I do not recall, either in the Committee or on the Floor of the House, anyone suggesting that it is not right to highlight the plight of the homeless and the extent of homelessness. No one disagrees that more should be done to prevent homelessness, and many Members recognise that it is not just a matter of bricks and mortar. However, the Assembly must back those fine words with actions.
The figures speak for themselves. Homelessness is on the increase. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that policies are flawed, and there is a need for proper resourcing. It is said that homelessness is not a major problem in Northern Ireland because people are not seen sleeping in doorways. In fact, the Lee Hestia Association’s study reported that at least 80 people in Belfast sleep outdoors every night. While Belfast is not a cardboard city, the Assembly should be under no illusions. Unless we tackle the problem directly and urgently, it is inevitable that our failure to do so will manifest itself more sharply, and it will not be long before the number of people occupying those doorways increases.
During the course of the inquiry there was a tragic fire at the Morning Star Hostel on the night of 11 February 2002. The Committee expressed its condolences and sent messages of support to those who were most closely involved with the hostel, and who are now constantly reminded of the fire. The services provided by the hostel are crucial to those who rely on it. We must not fail them.
Both Mr ONeill and Sir John Gorman referred to the intentionality test, with specific reference to young people. They approached the issue from different angles. Perhaps both are right. While Sir John said that the Committee did not accept the granting of automatic priority to young people who present themselves as homeless, I do not think that that is what Mr ONeill was saying. After a long debate in the Committee, he went off and checked the legislative position, as he said he would. He outlined the six categories. I agree with him that many young people will fall through the net. The Assembly must consider extending the categories of priority need. Studying the Homelessness Act 2002 will help us.
The draft housing Bill states that
"a person shall be treated as becoming homeless intentionally if he enters into an arrangement under which he is required to cease to occupy accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy."
The term "reasonable" needs to be clarified.
Mr Sammy Wilson referred to recommendation 4:
"The Committee recommends that, whilst the rights of individuals must be protected, this must not be at the expense of contributing to the breakdown of the family as a stable and caring unit."
I return to that because there was quite a long debate on it. Perhaps it is not worded in the way that it should be. The paramount priority is the right of the individual. The Committee is sensitive to the family unit. Dr Hendron supported recommendation 3, which refers to case conferencing. However, it is important to protect the individual, particularly in situations in which there is abuse.
I also want to make two political points. The case for funds and resources has a much better chance of being successful if the Minister who puts in the bids argues the case forcefully in the Executive, which makes the collective decisions. That is not in question. It is obvious.
Sammy Wilson came into the Chamber to make a bit of a rant. He referred to homelessness in east Belfast. Homelessness is not sectarian. If he and the Minister would show leadership and talk to those who are involved, perhaps progress would be made. [Interruption].

Mr Jim Wilson: Order, order.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Sorry.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I am encouraged that at least as many Members who are not members of the Committee for Social Development contributed to the debate, as those who are. However, it also demonstrates the extent of the problem. Obvious themes emerged today. One was the shared concern about the increase in the number of young homeless people. There were clear calls for a proper and inclusive definition of homelessness, raised by the SDLP and by Mr ONeill in particular, and picked up by Eileen Bell of the Alliance Party, and others.
Mr ONeill reserved his position on the issue raised by the Children’s Law Centre of 16- and 17-year-olds being given priority status, which I dealt with earlier. I hope that the forthcoming housing Bill will allow us to develop the debate on that matter.
Several Members reflected on the six main causes of homelessness, identified in paragraph 2.4 of the report. There is support across the House for a joined-up, interdepartmental, inter-agency approach, with the Housing Executive taking the lead. The need for a sustained commitment from other Ministers and their Departments is clearly stated in the Committee’s report.
Many Members were critical of the inappropriate use of bed-and-breakfast facilities, which do not represent good value for money. There is also a lack of locally accessible temporary accommodation and a need for customised, small, intimate foyer-type units, which many Members from various parties highlighted. Cross-party support exists for greater investment in support services. Many Members have advocated life skills programmes, counselling and advice, with which suggestion the Committee cannot agree more.
There have been calls for a review of the policy of providing social housing, even from the Minister for Social Development’s own party. The Committee is sympathetic to Mr Birnie’s idea that people who are involved in developing social housing sites should be assisted in giving some sort of guarantee that a certain section of any development would be for social housing.
The message about socially affordable housing and the annual deficit brought about by a minimalist new-build programme, allied to what I accept is a person’s right to buy, shows the need for capital investment. Some of Sir John Gorman’s statistics were a stark reminder of the size of the problem that we face.
Around 50% of social housing stock has been sold off, but, despite a young and growing population, it is not being replaced. Mark Robinson said that
"Demand for social housing must never be found wanting."
Homelessness is not a one-day wonder. Members across the Chamber recognise that homelessness requires continuous attention. I am sure that the Housing Executive accepts the need to adjust its working practices so that people leaving institutions — prisons, hospitals or care — can be assessed before they become homeless.
I am glad that there is broad support for the Committee’s calls for the introduction of measures to prevent homelessness. John Tierney mentioned the cycle of homelessness and the deficiencies of the points system, as did Jim Shannon. I hope that the Minister acts on those comments.
I welcome Joe Hendron’s remarks about pathway plans and personal advisers. I will welcome comments about clause 6 of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill from the Health Committee, once it has finalised its views. Esmond Birnie again hit the nail on the head when he mentioned homelessness as an example of social exclusion. I have already dealt with the principle of mixed housing developments.
I congratulate the Minister on making the £10 million bid for 150 units to accommodate homeless people.

Mr Jim Wilson: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Gerry Kelly: I will be as brief as possible.
The right to a home is a civil and human right that directly affects every individual in society. It is a fundamental right: not tackling homelessness properly, therefore, is a fundamental failure. We must ensure that the Assembly cannot be accused, especially after the new housing Bill becomes law, of failing in that duty.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the second report of the Committee for Social Development on their inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland (Homelessness) (3/01/R) and calls on the Executive to consider the report and arrange for the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.

TSN Criteria

Mr Roy Beggs: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to urgently replace "free school meals" as the sole criterion used to allocate TSN funding within the educational sector.
I thank the Business Committee for allowing me to bring to the Assembly my concerns at the current use of free school meals as the sole means of determining a school’s entitlement to TSN funding.
At the outset, I declare an interest. As a parent governor in a small rural primary school, I am directly aware of the financial pressures on our schools, particularly those in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area, which result from inadequate funding arrangements. More than 100 teachers are being made redundant in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area, and the inequality in the current TSN funding mechanism has contributed to that situation.
Although I am not a member of the Education Committee, I am concerned by the report compiled by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, ‘Indicators of Educational Performance and Provision’ (NIA 48/01), which has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. Through my membership of that Committee, and my role as a primary school governor, I have taken a particular interest in the inequality of school funding in the area I represent and in which I live.
I draw Members’ attention to the huge variation in funding per pupil between schools in different education and library board areas. Children in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area receive the second-lowest funding per pupil in the controlled sector, as recorded in the answer to my question for written answer, AQW 2390/01. What most concerns me about that answer is the degree of variation between various sectors and boards. According to figures for 2000-01, there is a variation of approximately 15% in the funding for primary school pupils in different sectors. How can that be justified? In the secondary school sector the difference is 18%. Such inequality cannot be justified.
I am aware of the development of a new common funding formula; however, the manner of directing the policy of targeting social need itself creates huge variations and inequalities between schools. That is because only one criterion is being used in determining allocations of TSN funding — the entitlement to free school meals.
In the consultation document ‘A Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools’, the Department of Education points out that a post-primary school of approximately 700 pupils with a 60% entitlement to free school meals could receive up to £166,000 a year more in funding for social deprivation than a similar school with a low entitlement to free school meals of, say, 10%. Clearly, that could have a huge impact on a school’s ability to address educational needs.
I support the concept of targeting social need. However, I question the appropriateness of using the free school meals criterion as the only measure when targeting TSN funds. I also question the degree of variation and inequality created by the current policy. I understand that approximately 5% of the education budget is top-sliced and distributed on the basis of entitlement to free school meals. That in turn is based on a family’s entitlement to either jobseeker’s allowance or income support. Is that an appropriate indicator of deprivation in education? Research by the Department of Education and Skills has shown that in England and Wales some 20% of parents do not take up their entitlement. I suspect that the figure may be even higher in Northern Ireland. This criterion is not picking up all the children in need.
Locally, according to the figures for 1997-98, some 26·1% of pupils were entitled to free school meals. However, that figure dropped to 21·9% in 2001-02. Therefore, although the educational budget has increased, the TSN budget is targeted at fewer children, and I suspect that as many as 20% of those who are entitled to support do not claim it. That reluctance to claim creates inequalities and fails to address educational need in many instances.
While researching for the debate, I read evidence heard by the Committee for Education. The principal of Ballynahinch High School said that
"there is a resistance among some rural families, even when eligible to do so. Thus, any use of FSM eligibility as an indicator of need will not benefit the school."
The principal of St Nicholas’s Primary School said that
"using only Free School Meals eligibility as an indicator of need is often limiting. It does not address the range of problems of deprivation, and means that some schools with low FSM levels do not get the necessary help".
The principal of Loanends Primary School said that
"children in the school are experiencing failure, and the school has neither the time nor resources to address these issues. There are no funds for a specialist teacher. One explanation for this is that, because the school has no entitlement to Free School Meals-based funding, high levels of educational need are not recognised."
Educational TSN funds could be distributed through, for example, the working families’ tax credit. That would widen the distribution of funds and, according to recent figures from the Department for Social Development, lessen inequalities by making an additional 45,000 families eligible.
Will the Department of Education consider using different indicators of deprivation, such as those that are used by other Departments? The Noble index was introduced as a result of rigorous research and academic work to replace the Robson index. It has produced detailed work to show deprivation in housing, income, employment, health and disability, and educational skills and training. Educational indices are used to measure educational deprivation. However, could other more objective indicators, such as assessment of Key Stage 1 and 2 in primary schools, or absentee levels, be used in the education sector? I would like to hear the views of the Minister of Education and other Members.
In developing additional criteria, we must ensure that schools are neither rewarded for bad results nor penalised for good results. Perverse incentives, such as the removal of resources when improvements are made, would demoralise staff. I support the view of some members of the Education Committee that Key Stage 2 is not a suitable indicator for the allocation of special education funding to primary schools. Given that Key Stage 2 is assessed at the end of primary school, it is an inappropriate means by which to measure need. Therefore, if a judgement were made on the strength of Key Stage 2 performance, bad results may be rewarded, while good results may be penalised.
I await with interest the results of the needs and effectiveness analysis of the education sector. There is concern about the outcome of current TSN policy, and it is to be hoped that there will be detailed analysis of how the money is spent and the outcomes that are achieved. Could the money be better spent in other ways?
During my time as an MLA, I have become aware of the relatively poor take-up of state benefits and grants in my constituency of East Antrim. Many pensioners do not claim the minimum income guarantee to which they are entitled, and recent figures show that take-up for the warm homes scheme is lower than was expected.
That is the case, despite there being socially deprived wards and pockets in my constituency, which was indicated in the Noble indices. Historically, for whatever reason —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. Will the Member bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Roy Beggs: For whatever reason, many people in my area have not embraced a claim culture and have been too proud or independent to claim state benefits. Children have been doubly deprived because their parents have not claimed benefits, and that means that those children have not gained the educational advantages that result from TSN. I ask the Minister to notice that I have not been prescriptive as to what are more appropriate criteria for determining future TSN funding. I shall listen to other Members’ comments before I take a view on the amendment.

Mr Jim Wilson: I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 delete all after "Education" and insert:
"to have his Department, in consultation with the Committee for Education, carry out an in-depth review of the way social deprivation is measured."
The motion deals with free school meals. Those meals have been used for some time as an indicator of social deprivation and, as such, the matter has gained international recognition.
The motion calls for the present system to be scrapped and for it to be replaced with an unspecified system that will direct funding to the most socially disadvantaged children in our community. Any inequalities that exist in the present system are unacceptable. However, the introduction of untried indicators will not improve the circumstances of those who experience social deprivation.
Targeting social need is crucial in education. The link between underachievement and social deprivation is well known and well researched. Schools in socially deprived areas need extra funding to improve literacy and numeracy, and to help children overcome disadvantages that arise from poverty.
As we know, the Department of Education and the boards allocate their funding for social deprivation to schools on the basis of the numbers who receive free school meals. The criterion used to determine who is eligible for free school meals is whether a child’s parents are on jobseeker’s allowance or income support. Those entitlements have long been recognised as good indicators of social deprivation. Although questions have been asked, no one as yet has been able to devise a better system.
The Committee for Education held an inquiry into the Department of Education’s proposals for a new common funding formula for all schools. Some submissions raised the TSN element of the Department’s proposed new formula. Teachers in some schools pointed out that not all the children who were eligible for free school meals availed themselves of that entitlement. Staff from those particular schools said that although they provided additional support for socially disadvantaged children, the schools did not benefit from any extra money. Consequently, they faced increased financial pressures.
At least one other submission questioned whether the free school meals entitlement took account of all the children from low-income backgrounds. Those comments suggest that the free school meals indicator could work better than it does.
Therefore, the logical step is to examine how the free school meals indicator can be improved. As I have said, targeting social need is a crucial element in the funding of our schools, and, indeed, many educationalists believe that the overall level of money for TSN purposes that the Department provides is less than what is required.
Where resources are scarce, the impact of any changes to the method of funding under TSN guidelines must be given careful consideration. We must work towards a situation in which all children from socially deprived backgrounds benefit under TSN arrangements, and in which schools with the highest levels of social deprivation derive the most benefit.
Much research, discussion and debate are required in order to deliver TSN money to the most deserving children. Under the terms of the motion, that will not happen. The SDLP believes that the issue is central and that the Department of Education and the Education Committee should revisit it for more detailed discussion.

Mr Jim Wilson: I remind Members that the Business Committee allocated one and a half hours for the debate. Many Members wish to participate, and I must ask them to limit their contributions to a maximum of five minutes.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The issue of TSN criteria is important, and it affects school budgets in each Member’s constituency. Some schools will be grossly advantaged by the application of the free school meals formula, and others will be grossly disadvantaged to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds and, in some cases, to the extent of one or two teachers.
The case against the use of free school meals as a means of targeting social and educational disadvantage is compelling. The use of free school meals as a criterion does not deal with the problem. The Department of Education came to that conclusion in a report where it is stated that
"the evidence does not distinguish between pupils’ under-attainment resulting from social disadvantage and under-attainment with its origins in a lesser capacity to learn, irrespective of social and economic background. It is therefore somewhat unclear as to which of these sources of under-attainment is the most important one and where the balance of TSN funding, between social deprivation and educational needs, should lie."
Despite that, the Department states that it wants to use free school meals as the measure and recognises that, even if free school meals were the proper way to fund those who are socially disadvantaged and, therefore, have an educational disadvantage, or people who are educationally disadvantaged, 20% of families do not take up the provision. Those figures come from the Department. It does not deal with the issue, which is to allocate extra money to help youngsters who, because of social disadvantage or an inability to learn, have educational needs.
When the criteria are applied, a totally unfair situation emerges if a pupil happens to attend a Belfast school and comes from a background where free school meals are an entitlement. Depending on the school, no money might be paid or an additional £525 might be paid. If other boards are taken into consideration, the amount allocated varies from £322 in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area to £298 in some grant-maintained schools. The money is not evenly distributed, with a variation of almost 100% between pupils.
The Committee received evidence from school principals, who made it clear that this was a very unfair measure. The almost universal experience of principals from rural schools was that pupils from farming backgrounds tend not to take up free school meals because of the stigma attached to them. Another principal who gave evidence said that the spending levels did not appear to coincide with the educational needs of the youngsters in the school. Therefore, she found herself at a disadvantage when it came to providing additional facilities.
Roy Beggs has already mentioned that the take-up of the provision of school meals is not a balanced indicator of social disadvantage. While only 9·2% of pupils in reception classes in controlled schools are entitled to free school meals, 18·9% of pupils in maintained schools are entitled to them. There is not even a balance in provision across education sectors. When the Committee considered this matter, there was criticism from all parties. A member of the Minister of Education’s party said:
"On the matter of free school meals, the Robson index, in my view, is a good enough indicator of social deprivation. In Fermanagh, for example, income levels are only 70% of those in places such as England or other areas of the Six Counties. That is a statistic anyone can work on. There are people who will not claim free school meals, even though they are entitled to them."
I will not name the Member who said that, because he may be punished for going against his own Minister. However, that was the view of a Sinn Féin member of the Committee for Education.
Despite what Tommy Gallagher said, there are alternative measures. There are many diagnostic tests that can be done on a one-to-one basis, or collectively, that are not intrusive. There are tests that study people’s linguistic and mathematical development and their ability to understand rhyme. All of those are better indicators of educational need than the blunt instrument of the take-up of free school meals.
It is important to consider the alternatives because the system disadvantages rural schools, some education sectors and some boards. There is no evidence in the work of the Department to prove that the way in which funding is targeted gets to the nub of the problem and makes available to schools the resources that are required to deal with educational need. This indicator is a blunt instrument that the Department cannot stand over. The Department’s own report states that people do not take up this provision, so how can it be used as a measure? The system does not distribute equal amounts of money to all pupils or to the various types of schools. Therefore, it is important to consider a different way of dealing with this.
Even the blunt instrument of the Warnock indicator, which says that 10% of youngsters in every school will suffer some educational disadvantage, is a better measure of social disadvantage than free school meals. At least that indicator would ensure uniformity across schools and that schools received the required resources.
I do not think that the Minister will change his mind. Despite the compelling evidence and the fact that the Committee for Education asked him to look for alternatives, he has refused to reconsider because he has another agenda behind his method for distributing funding to schools.

Mr Jim Wilson: It escaped my attention, Mr Wilson, that you have exceeded your allocated time.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I do not support the thrust of the motion. Mr Sammy Wilson would attack Sinn Féin’s position, as usual, but Mr Roy Beggs may have some genuine reasons for the points that he made. The thrust of the motion is purely sectarian, so I will not support it.
TSN is important to everyone, and we all want money to be allocated to deprived areas. Quite often, Members — including Sammy Wilson, a member of the Committee, who discussed Belfast schools — use questionable statistics. Jobseeker’s allowance entitlement and other measures of deprivation do not always combine to create the best formula. The Noble index takes various factors into account, and most areas do quite well under that formula. The indicator of free school meals entitlement identifies children from low-income families.
The percentage of children who are entitled to free school meals has been used to indicate the level of socio-economic disadvantage in schools. That figure also correlates strongly to low academic attainment and the percentage of young people who leave school with few, or no, formal qualifications. More recent statistics link free school meals entitlement with poor transfer test results. Pupils who are entitled to free school meals have, on average, lower GCSE grades. Average pass rates in leaving examinations are about 50% higher in post-primary schools at which less than 5% of children are entitled to free school meals, compared to those where 20% or more pupils qualify.
Pupils at schools in the lowest free school meals band are more than two and a half times more likely to achieve a grade A in the 11-plus test than those in the highest free school meals band. Moreover, as the population of pupils who are entitled to free school meals rises, so too does the proportion of pupils who do not sit the transfer test.
Mr Beggs suggested that we replace free school meals entitlement with another indicator. The Ulster Unionist Party has argued that point for a long time, in Committees and elsewhere. Its argument is motivated not by a desire to find the best indicator of social need, but by sectarianism and a refusal to accept that the Catholic population experiences greater poverty and social need than Protestant people. One unhappy consequence of the Ulster Unionists’ campaign to have free school meals entitlement removed is that they are abandoning — [Interruption].

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. Mr McHugh is entitled to be heard. Will Members cease the hubbub in the Chamber?

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gerry McHugh: I have little enough time; I will not give way.
Belfast primary schools were mentioned. Seventy-seven per cent of pupils at Malvern Primary School are eligible for free school meals; 70% of pupils at Blythefield, Beechfield, Currie, Edenbrooke and Avoniel primary schools qualify. There is a long list of schools with a high percentage of entitlement to free school meals, and most of them are state controlled. The percentage of free school meals entitlement in post-primary schools is high also. Over 60% of pupils at Mount Gilbert Community College and Templemore Controlled Secondary School qualify for free meals. Balmoral High School, Castle High School, Newtownabbey Community High School, Dunmurry High School and Lisnasharragh High School all have a very high percentage of pupils who are entitled to free school meals. Twenty-three out of 80 post-primary schools —

Mr Jim Wilson: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Under no circumstances do we wish to remove free school meals entitlement as the core criterion. I do not support the motion, or Mr Gallagher’s amendment, because both allow Members such as Sammy Wilson to get off the hook.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I will confine my remarks to the motion and the amendment. I will not go into detail as other Members have done; I am sure that people have taken the points on board.
I am a member of two Committees — the Committee for Education and the Committee of the Centre. Both Committees have been investigating the targeting social need procedures from a number of aspects. All of the members of those Committees have agreed that while it is laudable in its intention, targeting social need is not as efficient or effective as it was designed to be. The Robson indices and the new, improved Noble indices, which determine the implementation of targeting social need, have been seen to be flawed. That means that areas of potential deprivation are ignored if they happen to be within larger, more prestigious areas.
In my local area there is a good example, which I have spoken about before. My constituency, North Down, the so-called "gold coast", includes large estates where underdevelopment and deprivation are the norm. The high incidence of non-take-up of school meals in these areas, as in others, makes nonsense of the idea that free school meals should be the sole criterion for much wider assessment and judgement. Colleagues have made that point more specifically.
Research has proved that there are many parents who do not avail of free school meals for their children, even in the most deprived areas. Therefore, using free school meals as an indicator of deprivation is questionable. To put it in plain language, Members have a simple choice: we either face up to our responsibilities as legislators and do something to get the current system radically reviewed and, if necessary, changed, or we look the other way and ignore the plight of those more needy than ourselves.
An urgent review of the whole school meal procedure is long overdue. If we really want all children to enjoy the best facilities for their education, we must look more carefully at a wider and more reliable range of factors. As the amendment states, I suggest an in-depth review of how the criteria of social deprivation are measured in schools. The Minister would not refuse to consider such an evaluation. Such a review should be undertaken so that we have the best method of ensuring that all pupils, whatever their background, can avail of TSN programmes that will benefit their education.
Pending such a review, the whole process of targeting social need must be dealt with seriously and sensitively. However, it would be dangerous to fully support the motion until we are sure that any replacement — tests or otherwise — would be adequate and efficient enough to replace the current system. I support the amendment.

Mr Edwin Poots: Mr McHugh suggested that the motion has a sectarian background, which is strange coming from IRA/Sinn Féin. Perhaps he would like to comment on the Belfast Education and Library Board comment that
"in order to deal with the complexity of identifying social disadvantage, alternative and additional indicators to the current Free School Meals indicator should be explored".
He may accuse the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party of sectarianism, but is he now accusing the employees of the Belfast Education and Library Board of being sectarian? They are involved in education, and they should know when a change must be carried out.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland) in the Chair)
Several indicators other than free school meals could be used. The Noble indicators have recently been produced. They are weak in many ways because they do not take into account the black economy that exists in Northern Ireland, which runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. Nevertheless, those indicators have outlined clearly that there is significant educational disadvantage, particularly in Protestant/Unionist communities.
I would not dare to accuse Mr Lombard from the Holy Trinity Primary School of being sectarian, but perhaps IRA/Sinn Féin would. He said:
"Free School Meals eligibility is a good indicator of social need, but there may be other needs in schools with lower levels of deprivation and these are not acknowledged through the formula at present".
Clearly, there is someone who does not come from a Unionist background or have a Unionist perspective saying that entitlement to free schools meals is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
It is also noted with regard to the basis of the levels of funding for TSN that
"spending levels and initiatives do not appear to have eroded the existing differentials between these and other pupils."
Thus it would appear that the differentials that were in place are still in place, despite the spending that has taken place over the past few years. Clearly, the current process is not working. So why is the Department so keen to engage in a process that, according to its own documents and papers, is not working, has not eroded the problem and is not about to erode it with the system now in use?
The Minister does not want to look at other options, because that does not suit him. If he went down that route he would ultimately have to put more money into the controlled sector and provide more for children in Unionist and Protestant areas. He often tells us how concerned he is about children on the Shankill Road, yet when it comes to providing funding for new schools, he will fund the schools in the controlled sector at about half the rate that he funds schools in the maintained sector. When it comes to TSN he will seek to have a mechanism in place that will target specifically schools within his own sector.

Mr Gregory Campbell: That is because he is a bigot.

Mr Edwin Poots: Other Members can say that the Minister is a bigot. People will make that judgement based on the work that he has done as a Minister and on the fact that he has not addressed the issue of social need in the controlled sector and has used every mechanism that he can to avoid it.
I support the motion and oppose the amendment. Mr Gallagher, who moved the amendment, did not deal with any of the issues, other than to say that the use of free school meals as the criterion is a good system and that he did not want to change it. There is clear, tangible evidence that it needs to be changed, and the Minister must take that on board.

Rev William McCrea: I agree with my Friend, Mr Sammy Wilson, that this is a very important issue. I do not intend to speak extensively in the debate — I could not do that, as I have only five minutes.
Many schools face this major problem. I want to mention, in particular, the controlled sector in the North- Eastern Education and Library Board. Schools in the area are totally strapped for cash, and significant choices must be made before the simplest work can be carried out. Many teachers are being made redundant, and more will be made redundant soon. That is an important issue. Not only does it affect the schools, but it has a major impact on the education of the children at those schools. It is robbing children of the right to a good education. It is a blunt instrument that is denying children in the North-Eastern Board area the same right as other children across the Province to excellent schooling with the proper number of teachers on board.
My constituency is divided in two with regard to provision. On the one hand there is Cookstown, which is in one education board area, and on the other hand there is Magherafelt, which is in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area. There is, in the same constituency, a difference between the moneys that are available for schools. The main pressure is on Magherafelt, which is in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area.
Of course, it seems to be different in the maintained sector. The Minister is seldom in the constituency, although I am sure he receives news of it now and again. However, he knows full well that, as far as that constituency is concerned, although many of the schools in Magherafelt are falling apart, the new schools in the maintained sector are having millions of pounds spent on them. There is a great differential. In the Minister’s constituency, a different target for social need in the maintained sector from the one in the controlled sector seems to exist, even in relation to school provision.
I note with interest the remarks of Mr McHugh of the Minister’s party, Sinn Féin/IRA. He must have undergone a Saul of Tarsus-like conversion. I am sorry to link Saul with the said Member; when I get home to glory and speak to Saul I shall have to apologise to him. Does the Member think that we have not read the ‘Report on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools in Northern Ireland’? I noticed that there is a difference, and I shall tell the House what it is.
The minutes of evidence for Thursday 4 October show that when the report was being prepared, questions asked and evidence given, Mr McHugh mentioned the Robson index. The interesting aspect is that he was probably not reading from a script then. Today, however, he was handed a script to ensure that he was brought into line and kept to party policy. I wonder whether he thought that the Robson index, which he commended in the report, was a sectarian proposal, because everything else in the mind of the Member seems to be a sectarian proposal. That is an interesting statement, coming from the most sectarian party in existence in the Western World, never mind in Northern Ireland. However, that party uses it whenever it suits.
There must be equality of funding. The present formula is not adequate and denies the rights of the children in my constituency to a proper education. I support the motion.

Mr Robert McCartney: It seems to me that the motion does not suggest the abolition of free school meals as one of the criteria for the targeting of social need and for additional money for the education of those so targeted. It suggests that free school meals should be replaced as the sole criterion. That is important when one looks at that in conjunction with Mr Gallagher’s amendment. Mr Gallagher clearly accepted that free school meals was not, and should not be, the sole criterion for deciding whether the additional funding should be made available.
The amendment suggests that free school meals as the sole criterion is not the correct one. If it were the correct one, what need would there be for the substance of his amendment, which is to have the Department of Education, in consultation with the Committee for Education, carry out an in-depth review of the way in which social deprivation is measured?
It seems to me that the free school meals criterion is indeed a blunt instrument. I am sure that it was originally, and more accurately, intended to measure the nutritional situation of the pupils rather than their educational need. One can think of many instances in which a sharp child who was not getting as much nutrition as he required was nevertheless able to cope, and one can think of a child not so intellectually advantaged, but well fed and well looked after, who most definitely was in need of additional educational facilities and help. That is a situation in which this blunt instrument would not apply.
It is nonsense to suggest that someone, by virtue of his circumstances, who needs additional educational help is entirely congruent with someone who is not getting as much nutrition as he needs according to some standard. This clearly maintains the advantage of those who take maximum advantage of the benefits system. As long as that system is related to paying additional money for education, those who are on benefit and in areas where they have been on benefit and are determined to remain on benefit will get this extra money. Look at the figures which show that Catholic maintained schools account for 18·9% of uptake while controlled schools account for 9·2%. If anything shows the nonsense of free school meals as the sole criterion for TSN funding it is some of Mr McHugh’s figures. He mentioned a number of controlled primary schools, such as Blythe Street, Avoniel and others, that have an uptake of free school meals of over 70%.
One must ask if there is evidence to show that the increased funding those schools receive — and similar schools in the maintained sector too — is of benefit to them. Do they get better results? Do more children from those schools pass the 11-plus or transfer test? The answer is almost certainly no. There is no more damning criticism of the free school meal criterion than that. In areas of west Belfast, on an entirely different basis, 15% of the working population were on a disability benefit, a benefit that is not attributable to social conditions but to one’s physical condition, while in north Down only 3% of the working population were on it.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McCartney, please draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Robert McCartney: That is evidence that the benefits system and correlated assessment of the system is absolutely wrong and unfair as a means of measuring social need.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. Many parents who live in the lower income bracket grew up receiving free school meals and probably had the school dinner stigma attached to them, and that is where the problem arose. Free school meals are a good way of ensuring that children from lower income families have at least one nutritious meal a day, and I heard someone making that point on the radio this morning. Unfortunately, receipt of free school meals alerts a child’s peers to his family’s financial situation; perhaps that has not happened so much in the recent past. When I was at school, children who received free school meals became the butt of many a child’s prank.
There must be a way of allocating TSN funding to education that does not embarrass children. Schooldays are tough enough for children without their being set out as different from the beginning so that the Department of Education can monitor the need for TSN funding.
Many children who qualify for free school meals do not take them up because of the stigma attached to them. Targeting Social Need in education should not come down to how many free school meals are allocated in each area. Social need in education is an extensive issue and needs a more appropriate measuring tool. In the Strangford constituency there are pockets of affluence surrounded by areas of need. The two cancel each other out, and funding is missed out on, while the children of those two economic groups meet together at school on what should be a level playing field.
Some children can afford to have tutors when they need extra help, but those who are unable to afford such tuition often fail, so social need funding allocations to education should be more academically based. In 65% of towns across Northern Ireland most people over 16 have no formal educational qualifications. In my constituency of Strangford, the Ballywalter, Comber, Kircubbin, Westwinds and Portaferry areas have a higher than average percentage of adults with no formal qualifications. Areas where most adults have formal qualifications are highly likely to be wealthy ones.
One of the most important indications of social need is overcrowding, and that applies to schools as much as to houses. We have all seen the indexes of overcrowding in towns and villages, but what about schools? Some children in the Strangford constituency have to pass one school to go to another because the catchment area of the first school is so oversubscribed that it cannot take children from the housing development that is only metres from it. The criteria for social need funding for education should take the overcrowding in classrooms into account.
If classrooms are overcrowded, it is only natural that the teaching will be less effective, as teachers dealing with over 30 students do not have time to devote to students who are struggling. Students who leave such schools may not achieve their full potential and may join the 65% of people here who have no formal qualifications — thus adding to social need, as those without qualifications find it harder to get a stable job that will support them and their families. Overcrowding in schools is a valid, highly graphic indicator of where funding should go in education. It directly influences the qualifications that young people have when leaving school.
If we are to live together successfully, understanding and mutual respect are needed. That means eliminating the stigma and pain caused to children whose socio-economic backgrounds are revealed to their peers when they get free school meals. Funding must be allocated under criteria that show needs and areas of greatest need more efficiently and discreetly. Each community is different, so the criteria for funding must be adaptable so that those who get it will benefit from it. We need data that can be used to help children rather than categorise them.
Every child must be given the same educational opportunities. By removing economic barriers, children will be able to gain qualifications that will remove any need for a TSN fund for them and society. However, that dream is a long way off, so we need to remove the stigmas and put money into the heart of the problem that we are trying to address.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. It is right that we should spend time addressing matters that most closely affect the daily lives of many people. Poverty has, for too long, blighted the lives of individuals and whole communities. The Programme for Government highlights New TSN as its major way of combating social exclusion and poverty. New TSN means targeting our efforts towards ensuring that programmes and services are delivered in ways that are most helpful to disadvantaged people, and I am totally committed to applying its principles to address social deprivation wherever it is found.
My Department’s New TSN action plan concentrates on action that is designed to address the needs of children who are not achieving their full learning potential. As Mr Gallagher said, a substantial body of local and international research shows that there is a clear link between social disadvantage and low educational achievement. Children from socially disadvantaged circumstances tend to achieve less well at school, are less likely to stay on or enter further or higher education and in the future are more likely to be unemployed or work in lowly paid jobs.
The purpose of the TSN element in the local management of schools (LMS) formula is to provide additional resources to help schools address low achievement, underachievement and pastoral care problems arising from the social and economic characteristics of their pupil intake.
Some schools, particularly those with a high intake of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, face considerable problems in the daily management and pastoral care of their pupils; however, it is clear that a substantial proportion of TSN costs in schools arise in addressing the needs of children who are performing below the level expected for their age. That can manifest itself in low motivation to learn, behavioural problems, poor attendance and low attainment. Research and experience have shown that those problems can be successfully overcome by school-based strategies such as special needs teaching, numeracy and literacy programmes, attendance and discipline initiatives, and home/school liaison arrangements. However, those measures require staff time and resources.
It is important to bear in mind that the consultation document on the local management of schools common formula proposed that TSN funding should continue to be based on two distinct elements: social deprivation, which is based on free school meals; and special educational need, which is based on measures of educational underachievement. Those who are in greatest need must be identified objectively and targeted fairly, regardless of gender, religion or race.
Given that there is a clear correlation between social deprivation and low educational attainment, we need a robust and objective indicator that will enable us to direct our resources where they are most needed and where they will do most good in raising attainment levels. That will therefore give our most disadvantaged children the chance of a better life. Often, children do not attend a school in the area where they live. Pupils who live in areas that on a location-based indicator would be regarded as deprived often attend school in an area that is not so deprived, and vice versa. In addition, many pupils who live in one education and library board area cross board boundaries to attend schools that are situated in other board areas. For that reason, location-based indicators such as the Noble indicators, which are advocated by Roy Beggs Jnr and Edwin Poots, would not necessarily ensure that funding would be directed at those most in need.
Local and international research has confirmed that entitlement to free school meals is a robust indicator of social disadvantage among school pupils and is closely correlated with poor educational achievement. In the absence of any better, easily collected, readily updateable pupil indicator of social disadvantage, my Department will continue to use free school meals as a key means of targeting funding at schools with pupils with the greatest need. It is significant that the continued use of free school meals as an indicator of social deprivation was widely supported by schools in the recent consultation ‘A Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools’.
Roy Beggs Jnr, Tommy Gallagher, Sammy Wilson and others said that the uptake of entitlement to free school meals is not as high as it could be. My Department is keen to ensure that resources are directed towards the pupils in genuine need. The uptake of entitlement to free school meals will be researched in the family resources survey, which commenced in April of this year in conjunction with the Department for Social Development. The results will not be known until April 2003. Arrangements for determining entitlement to free school meals have traditionally mirrored those applicable in England, where consideration is being given to extending entitlement to include low-wage families in receipt of working families’ tax credit. If implemented, this will extend the coverage of the indicator.
Roy Beggs Jnr, Sammy Wilson and Eileen Bell spoke of the use of additional indicators for TSN. As I have said, research has found that entitlement to free school meals is a robust indicator of social disadvantage among school pupils and is closely correlated with poor educational achievement. The indicator or indicators used for social deprivation must be robust, objective and capable of being updated regularly as circumstances change. That narrows the field considerably; however, I am prepared to give careful consideration to the use of alternative indicators should they become available.
During today’s debate, as is typical in many of the debates that involve DUP Members, we hear the old chestnut of discrimination against the Unionist and Protestant communities.
I refute absolutely any allegations of discrimination, either with regard to that issue or to the allocation of funds through the schools capital building programme — [Interruption].
4.00 pm

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Members who resort to that sort of sectarian rant, which is what it effectively amounts to — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Members such as Robert McCartney, who claims to be something of an intellectual as well as being a barrister, and who claims, like some Members in the DUP wing, to be well versed in the law — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: If those Members believe that there is discrimination, they are free to go to the Equality Commission or to the courts to seek redress. Why do they not do that? They do not do that because they know that they will not win.
These are important issues that affect all our children. Roy Beggs raised the issue of the proposals for the allocation of TSN funds within the local management of schools common funding formula. It is proposed to include educational indicators alongside entitlement to free school meals in allocating TSN funding, and to increase the proportion of TSN funding on educational need relative to social deprivation. That proposal is designed to take account of the extra support required by pupils who perform below the expected level for their age, regardless of their social background. The share of total funding allocated to TSN will also be increased from 5% to 5·5%. That will provide a further £4 million to help schools to provide additional educational support to underperforming pupils, while maintaining existing levels of support to schools with substantial numbers of disadvantaged pupils.
Roy Beggs and William McCrea raised the issue of the situation in the Northern-Eastern Education and Library Board area. As I have already stated, free school meals entitlement has been recognised for some time as the best available, and most robust, indicator of social deprivation in the education sector. Although I appreciate that the number of such pupils who attend North-Eastern Education and Library Board-funded schools is relatively low and has shown a relatively higher rate of decline recently compared with that of other board areas, the corollary is that North-Eastern Education and Library Board schools will, in general, face lower incidences of the problems, and the associated costs of addressing them, which stem from socially deprived pupils.
William McCrea also raised the plight of controlled schools in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area in relation to redundancies. Department of Education officials are working closely with the North- Eastern Education and Library Board to gather detailed information on its financial situation. Once that information is received, and the Department has completed its assessment, consideration will be given as to what steps to take next. The Department is progressing the issue of the financial pressures that face the North-Eastern Education and Library Board, and other education and library boards, with the utmost urgency.
Sammy Wilson and Edwin Poots raised the issue of differentials in the levels of funding across boards. That will be addressed in due course in the common funding formula proposals. Sammy Wilson and Eileen Bell raised the issue of the stigma of claiming free school meals. I am as anxious as anybody else to ensure that resources are directed towards those pupils who have genuine need. The issue of the uptake of the entitlement to free school meals will, as I said, be researched in the family resources survey that started in April 2002 in conjunction with Department for Social Development. The results of that survey will not be known until April 2003.
From my perspective, it is important to point out that the existing methodologies for distribution of funding across school sectors and among the five education and library boards includes the skewing of 5% of available resources based on the relative incidence of pupils who are entitled to free school meals. My Department initiated a review of the assessment of relative needs exercise methodologies that are used for the distribution of resources among boards. The review will include consideration of the most appropriate indicators of social need.
I hope that what I have said will provide a measure of reassurance about my commitment to ensure that the problems of educational underachievement continue to be tackled seriously by ensuring that resources are targeted where they are most needed, irrespective of the community background of the children concerned.
I remain satisfied that entitlement to free schools meals remains the most robust indicator of social deprivation and, therefore, of the likelihood of educational underachievement. However, I am on record as having indicated my willingness to keep the issue under review and to consider using more effective indicators, should they become available. Very soon I shall write to the Committee for Education with the proposals that arise from the local management of schools consultation. I intend to work with the Committee in implementing the common formula.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Mr McCartney referred to my admission that there were some shortcomings about the current use of the free school meals criterion. From that, he seemed to imply that I should support the motion and, therefore, that there was no need for an amendment. However, it is not as simple as that. The issue is social deprivation in education. Many Members said that social deprivation in education has implications for other aspects of life, not least employment opportunities. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect what the SDLP thinks about the issue, which is that we should be careful about how we proceed. We should be cautious and should certainly not be in a rush to introduce untried criteria, which is what the motion calls for.

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I will not give way during my winding-up speech.
The motion, according to some Members, is driven by concerns about the funding situation in the North- Eastern Education and Library Board area. I have great sympathy with a situation that affects so many parents, children and schools in that board area. However, it is not sensible to table a motion that states that resources should be taken from socially disadvantaged children in other board areas to address the situation in the North- Eastern Education and Library Board area. When North- Eastern Education and Library Board representatives came to the Committee for Education, they were clear that although the board faced difficulties, they did not want solutions that involved taking money from elsewhere in the education system to address their problems.
Other Members referred to the Noble indicators, stating that they would be a better solution. They would not be a better solution because even though there are some shortcomings in using the free school meals criterion — and we must bear in mind that no system is perfect — the Noble indicators are residence-based. They are based on the circumstances in electoral wards and district council areas.
The world of education transcends the boundaries of electoral wards, and many children go to school in a different council area from the area in which they live. Bearing that in mind, there would be huge problems, inequalities and inconsistencies in any system that was based on the Noble indicators.
It is encouraging that the Minister pointed out that research is ongoing on this issue and that the uptake of free school meals is being researched. Hence, the amendment is the right way to go. Both the Department and the Committee for Education will be involved in that debate until its conclusion in 2003.

Mr Roy Beggs: I regret that I cannot support Mr Gallagher’s amendment, because it does not deal with the issues that I raised. It focuses only on social deprivation and does not recognise that educational need is inadequately addressed. Unless that need is dealt with, social deprivation will result.
Sammy Wilson highlighted the need to balance social deprivation and educational needs. Although that might not have been the spirit of some Members’ contributions, it is the spirit of this motion. Furthermore, Sammy Wilson highlighted the variation in TSN pupil funding: it is up to £500 in the Belfast Education and Library Board area and up to £300 in other board areas.
I regret that Gerry McHugh and others attempted to play the sectarian card; that was not my motive. Although the North Eastern Education and Library Board has the second-lowest funding per pupil in both the primary school and secondary school sectors, grant-maintained schools in other board areas have the lowest funding. My motives are not sectarian, and I regret that some Members saw them as such. I simply seek equality in the distribution of funding. Nobody has given any justification for the 15% to 18% variation in funding for each pupil. I am sure that everyone agrees that social need should be targeted and that children in socially deprived areas should be helped, but that should not be done at the expense of others. Nobody responded to my question on the degree of funding. I am concerned at the Minister’s suggestion that we should increase TSN funding to 5·5%; however, I recognise that his intention was to direct the extra funding to address educational need. Nevertheless, I question the reduction of the budget for all schools.
I must admit that I appreciated the earlier comments of Mr McCartney, who did read my motion and appeared to understand its wording and the purpose of including the word "sole". Others did not understand. Nowhere in the motion was it suggested that we should remove free school meals; in fact, I suggested that the facility should be extended to those who claim the working families’ tax credit, thus widening support for the working poor. Many of the working poor do not receive benefits, and we do not wish their children to be disadvantaged.
The Minister expressed his wish to develop the full learning potential of all children and to develop programmes and services to help the most disadvantaged — surely that means the educationally deprived. That is why I stressed that in addition to addressing social deprivation, we must target those in educational need. There must be a balance, and it was in that spirit that I moved the motion.
The Minister said that there are two factors: free schools meals entitlement and special education indicators. I wish to learn more of that, and I hope that he will do more than make statements about it. I hope that the real needs of those who do not receive funding will be dealt with and that educational needs will be addressed.
I shall not support the amendment.
Question put,
The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes : 36
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Eamonn ONeill, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 37; Noes 25
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, David Ford, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to urgently replace "free school meals" as the sole criterion used to allocate TSN funding within the educational sector.

Neutral Working Environment

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Assembly Commission to report to the Assembly by October 2002 on how symbols and emblems in Parliament Buildings will be used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division within the new institutions as outlined in the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the Good Friday Agreement.
The motion is not about removing any of the symbols or emblems that adorn this Building and estate, nor is it about replacing one history with another. It is about fulfilling a provision of the Good Friday Agreement, which has been ignored to date.
The motion does not propose any immediate action, or prescribe how this Building or estate should be decorated. It simply proposes that the Assembly Commission, which has responsibility for these matters, examines the current range of symbols and emblems; takes account of the section in the Good Friday Agreement that deals with symbols and emblems in our new institutions and reports back to the Assembly in the autumn on how it proposes to fulfil those obligations.
The provisions in the agreement regarding the new institutions were vital in securing the support of both communities for the establishment of the Assembly and other institutions. Nationalists, in particular, had deep concerns about the re-establishment of a Northern Assembly, given our historical experience under the old Stormont. Therefore, rigorous checks, balances, and guarantees had to be secured to ensure our participation in the Assembly.
The concepts of power sharing, ministerial positions, Chairs and Deputy Chairs, as of right under d’Hondt, and the requirement for cross-community support for key decisions all point to the fact that this is a new and inclusive political dispensation in which the rights of both communities, and others, are protected. All who signed up to the agreement have a duty to protect and promote that inclusiveness.
The Building in which the Assembly is currently located is of significant historical importance, and obviously has significant historical attachment for Unionists. The Stormont estate and Parliament Buildings quite clearly reflect to the world the expressed desire of the creators for a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.
Visitors, staff, and Members approach the Building up the Prince of Wales Avenue, past the statue of Edward Carson, who, contrary to the amendment from the DUP, has a rather dubious connection to the parliamentary history of this Building. They enter the Building under the statue of Britannia, and not one but two union flags on designated days, and then face the statue of Craigavon at the top of the Stairs. The tomb of Craigavon is located at the side of the Building, and there are many other British and Unionist symbols built into the fabric of the Building.
All of this accurately reflects the historical background of this location. As an Irish Republican I have no allegiance to that, but I am not proposing that they be eradicated. I am asking the Assembly Commission to reflect on how the Building and estate can reflect their current position in Irish history, and, in doing so, make this a place in which all people feel a sense of ownership.
I acknowledge the steps already taken by the Speaker and others. The adoption of the flax flower as the symbol of the Assembly was an important first step. The Speaker has been pursuing other steps. The statue unveiled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the estate, arguably open to cynical misinterpretation, and the planting of 108 trees also highlight the new inclusive nature of our political institutions.
Those developments are very much ad hoc. Four years after we adopted this location, Parliament Buildings and the estate still very much reflect a British and Unionist ethos. The Commission must address this in a structured and proactive way.
The DUP amendment, even more so than my motion, depicts what needs to be done so that our institutions visually reflect the principles that underpin them. Those who are against the agreement, power sharing and the checks and balances that ensure that everyone in the community has a stake in these institutions unsurprisingly want the symbols and emblems of this place to reflect their tradition, and their tradition alone, for all time. They are consistent in their opposition to Nationalists or Republicans having any meaningful share in these institutions, although they are happy to adopt d’Hondt and accept our support on various councils throughout the North when it comes to securing positions.
Anyone who supports the agreement should accept that the dominance of one community over the other has been consigned to the past. Our new political institutions should reflect that reality. I have heard Members from all pro-agreement parties applaud the inclusive nature of our institutions and stress the importance of that in their success to date. We have a duty to reflect that to all who work in and visit this Building and estate by ensuring that there is an equal welcome for all. This does not threaten anyone who supports the agreement, and it does not even threaten anyone who does not support the agreement. I look forward to the support of all Members for the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 delete all after "to report to the Assembly" and insert:
"on how any additional symbols and emblems can reflect the parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate."
There is one relatively unimportant matter that we should deal with at the outset: the timing referred to in the motion is obviously totally unrealistic given the few weeks that remain in this session and the several weeks that precede the commencement of the autumn session of the House. For that reason, our amendment would delete the reference to the date. In the wider scheme of things, that is relatively unimportant.
The amendment tries to deal with the issue by looking past the discriminatory and offensive nature of the Belfast Agreement. We seek to go beyond the agreement, which is endorsed by 98% of the Nationalist community and opposed by over 50% of the Unionist community, and what it seeks to achieve. Anything that was built on or arose out of the Belfast Agreement would be tainted and scarred in the eyes of the Unionist community because of how it was structured to benefit one section of the community — and it certainly was not the Unionist section. We want to look beyond that, and for that reason our amendment would also delete that reference from the motion.
I now turn to what we would like to see in any amended proposition. There are several features in Parliament Buildings and the estate. Many of those symbols, statues and emblems pertain to the founding of Northern Ireland, as do many emblems and statues in Parliaments of other countries, for example, in the Irish Republic, Westminster and other parliamentary grounds throughout the European Union and in the wider world. A building of any historic merit will have statutes and emblems that pertain to the origins of the particular state that the Parliament has been established to govern.
Northern Ireland is no different. We had those statutes and emblems, and they are still in place today. They do not reflect the Unionist view of life. That is where we see the deliberate mistake in the proposal for change by Sinn Féin/IRA. It wants to misconstrue the origins of Northern Ireland as essentially and exclusively Unionist in outlook. Unfortunately, it became Unionist because those who said that they would have nothing to do with it boycotted it and attempted to undermine it. As I said, the origins of the state were not explicitly and exclusively Unionist.
There are statues in the Dublin Parliament that reflect the origins of that state, and I wait with interest moves in the Irish Republic to put in place new symbols and emblems to reflect the British tradition that existed there before it was forced out and before the 10% became 2%. I have not heard of any. Perhaps they are being made now; perhaps the Dáil is deliberating at great length, as we speak, over what British emblems will be put in place at its entrance. If it is, I wait with interest to hear what they will be. The truth is that I have not heard of any such moves. That gives some sort of context to the suggestions from Sinn Féin/IRA today.
However, we must look to the future. We have looked at what may be examined in the future in terms of the parliamentary history of this Building and this estate, which were not the exclusive preserve of the Unionist tradition. Many Nationalists frequented this Building: Eddie McAteer was the MP for Mid Londonderry from 1953 to 1969; Paddy Maxwell was the MP for Foyle from 1937 to 1953; Joe Stewart was the MP for East Tyrone from 1929 to 1964, and that was some longevity. There are some accusations about people having long terms of office at the moment, but Mr Stewart managed 35 years, and that was no mean achievement. Then there was Senator James Lennon from 1944 to 1972 and Senator Paddy McGill from 1953 to 1972. Many Nationalists were either MPs in the previous Stormont Parliament or in the Senate.
While I am not suggesting that any or all of them should be included, that shows that we did not have an exclusively Unionist Parliament in Stormont for 50 years. If our amendment is successful, I hope that the Commission will examine what possibilities could emerge to reflect our parliamentary history as it affected the entire community. There could be photographs, a statute or whatever. We are not being prescriptive about what ought to be put in place.
The failure to put in place emblems and symbols like that comes up from time to time, and it is presented as showing some form of antagonism, opposition or bigotry towards the Nationalist community.
I would much prefer an earnest seeking of a replica of the parliamentary history of this Building to be put in its proper place so that due cognisance could be given to its history and culture. I would rather have that than the approach of those who put up symbols only to undermine them. We have seen examples of that in some councils in Northern Ireland. I would much prefer a realistic approach that can give genuine recognition to the parliamentary history of Unionism and of Nationalism in this Building and on the Stormont estate.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The motion speaks of the aspiration towards mutual respect, and that seems fine; however, we question the motion’s intent. I hope that we all favour truly fair employment, equality of opportunity and, indeed, the mutual respect mentioned in the motion. Nevertheless, we must think about what the motion would mean in practice. Is it about building or destroying?
The mover of the amendment, Mr Campbell, rightly drew parallels with the Dáil and its symbolic, if limited, representations. We need not fear for Parliament Buildings if that is the comparison. Perhaps, ultimately, the intention of the motion, although it is not stated, is to draw a misguided parallel with what happened in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since 1989 and 1991, where statues of Lenin and Stalin and other representatives of the now discredited Communist regime have been toppled. Perhaps it refers to the removal of statues, pictures and other symbolic representations of British colonial rule in countries such as India since 1947.
The motion’s attempt to base that intention on the section on rights and safeguards and equality of opportunity in the Belfast Agreement cannot properly speak on the issue of flags, although the proposer referred to flags flying from the top of this Building. That part of the Belfast Agreement spoke only of symbols and emblems. Legally, it excluded the national flag, which remains an excepted matter for the Westminster Parliament under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000.
There is a case for adding rather than removing or vandalising historical symbols. Indeed, the proposer of the amendment has implied some ways forward. Therefore we shall oppose the motion and support the amendment.

Mr Patrick Roche: The objective of the motion is to make Stormont into a location for commemorating the activists and activities of IRA/Sinn Féin. That must not be permitted. That is not to deny a proper mutual respect between citizens of the United Kingdom. However, IRA/Sinn Féin wishes to promote by the use of emblems and symbols what no normal human being would ever consider worthy of respect.
To allow IRA/Sinn Féin to celebrate and commemorate the activities of its activists would amount to permitting the celebration and commemoration of mass murder and terrorism that took place for over thirty years. That is a point that I want to illustrate in detail. Whether this motion would ever be acceptable is going to be determined by a clear understanding of what those symbols and emblems would be commemorating.
IRA/Sinn Féin activists were engaged in many incidents that the IRA/Sinn Féin’s use of symbols and emblems in this Building would intend to obliterate from the collective memory of the citizens of Northern Ireland. In Belfast on 21 July 1972 the IRA detonated 20 bombs in an hour and killed nine people. Peter Taylor in his book ‘Provos’ provides an eyewitness account of what happened. It says:
"You could hear people screaming and crying and moaning. The first thing that caught my eye was a torso of a human being lying in the middle of the street. It was recognisable as a torso because the clothes had been blown off and you could actually see parts of the human anatomy."
There was also the Enniskillen bomb on 8 November 1987 that killed 11 people at the cenotaph. Liam Clarke is recognised as a leading expert on IRA terrorism, and in a recent book he states that
"The Fermanagh units …. were given permission to attack a number of Remembrance Day ceremonies …. two were defused, but the third detonated, killing 11 civilians at the cenotaph in Enniskillen."
The suggestion that that sort of activity or those involved in promoting those activities should ever be commemorated in a Parliament would be unthinkable in any normal political system, but the Belfast Agreement did not establish a normal political system. It established a political system that elevated the perpetrators of the murderous activity of IRA/Sinn Féin into the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the judgement of leading experts on IRA/Sinn Féin terrorists.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I notice that you are listening carefully and nodding your head.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That does not mean that I am agreeing with you, Mr Roche. I am listening carefully because I feel that at times you are straying from the motion.

Mr Patrick Roche: No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take from what you are saying that you are having difficulty following a very simple argument. If Members are ever going to permit the sort of symbols and emblems wanted by the Member who moved the motion, they must be aware of what they would be celebrating and trying to commemorate. That is why I am giving the examples.
The Belfast Agreement has elevated the perpetrators of this murderous activity into the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the judgement of leading experts on IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism. Liam Clarke, for example, in his recent book on the current Minister of Education states that
"Martin McGuinness who was in overall command of both the Army Council and the Northern Command gave permission to the Fermanagh units to attack a number of Remembrance Day ceremonies including Enniskillen."
That is the sort of activist and activity that would be commemorated if the motion were carried in this Building.
In their book on Gerry Adams, David Sharrock and Mark Devenport — two of the most respected political journalists operating in Northern Ireland — state categorically that Gerry Adams was among the planners of Bloody Friday.
I have already given an eyewitness account of what happened on that horrendous day. These are the IRA/ Sinn Féin activists who have been elevated and legitimised by the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement, therefore, carries the logic of what the motion proposes. The only way to effectively oppose the legitimisation of IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism — which is what the motion is really about — is to effectively repudiate the Belfast Agreement that requires that legitimisation. The effective repudiation of the Belfast Agreement is the major task that still confronts authentic Unionism, and our contribution today will be to oppose the motion and refrain from supporting the amendment.

Mr Robert McCartney: I oppose the motion. I have listened carefully to what the previous Member to speak has said, and I endorse most of his sentiments. What are the alleged institutions of this place? It is alleged to be some pale copy of a parliamentary democracy operating upon the usual democratic principles: that it is the right of a majority of people to elect a Government, and if that Government fails to deliver, to discharge them and elect another.
The circumstances in which the institutions of this place came about are the total negation of that fundamental principle. Nevertheless, one must assume that this place would wish to take on some of the attributes of what we term "representative democracy".
An examination of the history of this place, and such symbols as are claimed to exist, would, I suppose, include the statues of Carson and Craigavon as the two most evident symbols of its history. Both men were distinguished parliamentarians, and both supported the democratic process. When Carson gave up his position as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party he exhorted the party to take from the Roman Catholic fellow citizens all that was best in them, to do justice and fairness to them and to ensure that they participated. I see a sneering Mr Dallat, but, of course, Carson was not a sectarian bigot. Craigavon was also a distinguished parliamentarian.
What is proposed by the motion? It is to put down as a marker the parliamentary activity of Sinn Féin/IRA? I could envisage some distinguished Nationalists such as the late Paddy Devlin being represented in this Building. Paddy was a child of the Falls Road, a former IRA man who was arrested and interned. However, I knew Paddy personally, and as he matured he became a democrat in the purest sense. I would willingly support some memento or mark of respect to the late Paddy Devlin.
However, what would be proposed on behalf of Sinn Féin/IRA? Should we have murals depicting their heroic achievements at Kingsmills, when they separated 10 Protestant non-political workers like goats from the single Roman Catholic sheep and gunned them down?
Should we have a depiction of a bread server being shot in the back as he carries bread into his shop? Should we have an artistic representation of a bomb being planted outside Harrods or the Old Bailey, blowing an innocent consultant anaesthetist to destruction and destroying the lives and mutilating the bodies of many others? Should we have a memento of a schoolteacher being dragged out in front of his pupils and gunned down by a hero of the Sinn Féin/IRA revolution? Would those be, in any way, a proper record or acknowledgement of the parliamentary and democratic process of those who claim to be democrats? Democrats they are not.
They have achieved their position as Ministers and representatives in this place out of the gun barrel and the explosion. When a minority political party that is supported by terrorists fails to achieve through the democratic process, because it cannot impose its will or its policies upon a majority in a democratic process, it resorts to violence. A weak and pathetic British Government, in order to protect what they saw as their first-class citizens on the mainland, was suborned into granting it places in Government. Should those who have been instrumental in the murder of over 2,500 of our citizens be memorialised in this place as supporters of the democratic process or even of a pale replica of that process? I think not.
Some Members say that to make a terrorist feel at home, to make him feel equal, to make his dastardly and horrendous deeds a proper subject of memory and to make him feel good about himself, he should be given a place in something that claims to be a democratic institution. I think not. There is no way that the success of armed and horrendous terrorism should be elevated as a power by those who have pledged themselves to the democratic process.
We forget so easily. We forget that Mark Durkan, now the Deputy First Minister, recognised the basis of Sinn Féin/IRA success when two senior officials at Weston Park said to him "The reason that you do not get your plans implemented and Sinn Féin does is that you have no guns". That is not from a Unionist; it is from the SDLP Deputy First Minister. Nonetheless, that philosophy of terror, threat, murder, mutilation and destruction is now offered to us as an objective or success that should be engraved in these institutions. If it is the mind of this House, not only of Unionists but of the SDLP, that such memorials be erected in this Building, the SDLP and the Unionists, and anyone else who supports it, will be giving a spurious validity to the success of murderous terrorism. No matter how they may attempt to finesse it or excuse it by nuance or weasel words, they will be partners in crime.
If Members have any democratic resolution, as I believe many of them do, then it is the duty of the SDLP and every other party to oppose the motion.

Mr Pat McNamee: I support the motion, which is hardly surprising. I will speak to that motion, although I am not sure which motion some other Members have been speaking to.
Perhaps the word "neutral" is not the best word to describe the purpose and spirit of the motion. I do not believe that anyone is proposing that the historical and cultural artefacts and symbols be removed from the fabric of the Building. I do not believe that Parliament Buildings should become bereft of things that reflect the history of this part of Ireland. Surely, Members do not want to work in a bland, anonymous place that has no character or cultural quality. Indeed, some of the corridors in the Building are absent of anything except the bare walls, doors, ceiling and floor.
Parliament Buildings is part of the public face of Ireland, and, in particular, it is part of the public face of this part of Ireland. The Building is the public face of the Assembly and should reflect the cultural diversity of the people who work here. Of course, when I refer to people who work here, I include Assembly Members — some of whom work long hours on a daily basis, although sometimes the media would have us believe otherwise.
The greater number of visitors to Ireland take the opportunity to visit the Building as part of their itinerary. Their visit will form part of their impression of this island and of this part of Ireland. It will also form an impression of the people who live here. They should not get the impression from a bland, anonymous building that we are a bland, anonymous people who have no sense of the importance of our political and cultural history. Mr Esmond Birnie said that the motion is about subtraction and destruction. That is not what it is about. It is about creating a balance and promoting mutual respect.
The symbols, emblems and statues in the Building reflect the cultural and political identity of one section of the community — the Unionist community. I work in the Building, and I am, therefore, entitled to a balanced working environment. A balance does not exist that reflects the cultural diversity of the people who live in this region and the people who work in Parliament Buildings. The motion is intended to address that imbalance of symbols and emblems as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement, which was intended to engender parity of esteem and mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities.
The amendment seeks to reduce the motion to the extent that it would call on the Assembly Commission to report on how additional symbols and emblems can reflect the paramilitary history — Freudian slip — parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate, and to have a very narrow focus on its history. The history of this Building, as some Members admitted, has not been inclusive and does not reflect the entire community.
Of course, I have the right to change my mind. We are told that we wish to misconstrue the origins of the state as being Unionist. The British Government imposed partition against the will of the vast majority of people on this island. Is it any wonder that Nationalists chose to abstain and reject the institutions that flowed from that? Parity of esteem and mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities are not reflected in the symbols and emblems of this Building.
The proposers of the amendment are opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and do not want things to change. However, Unionists who supposedly support the Good Friday Agreement — or the Belfast Agreement, if they wish to call it that — should grow up. The Good Friday Agreement was reached four years ago in 1998. It is time that pro-agreement Unionists were out of their nappies and showed their support for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement by supporting the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sam Foster: Respect features heavily in this debate. I appeal for respect for this jurisdiction, to quote the motion, "in a manner which promotes mutual respect". It would be a responsible gesture by Sinn Féin if it showed respect for the emblem of this state by acknowledging it and not continuously trying to get rid of it.
References are often made to a neutral environment, but it is no longer neutral to me, and the majority of the citizens of this state, when the emblem of the state, the Union flag, is taken away, as in Fermanagh District Council. Indeed, it is extremely hostile to everybody when the emblem of their jurisdiction is not respected and flown with dignity.
It is a preposterous situation when the flag or symbol of a jurisdiction can be removed by a majority vote in a council chamber within that jurisdiction. I am questioning the motive behind the motion. It very much seems that anything British is no longer seen as part of our history but is said to be offensive. That is the kind of scene and agenda that Sinn Féin seeks to promote. If it can happen in Fermanagh, it could happen here.
The Enniskillen bomb has been mentioned. I was there on that day and remember it very well. I was lucky that I was not one of the real victims.
Sinn Féin now says that it seeks a neutral environment. Humbug, I say, just verbiage. How disgracefully hypocritical can one become? All of this is so sad. It is really an attempt to take over and undermine by pretentious means. In fact, it is war by another method because the armed struggle failed in its intent, but it scarred many, sadly. The action of Fermanagh District Council is offensive to many people.
I am not one who wants to flaunt a flag, but someone who respects the flag of the jurisdiction one may be visiting or residing in. The motion refers to the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the Belfast Agreement. Sinn Féin is in Stormont and is very enthusiastic about the workings of the Assembly. It has two Ministers with Executive portfolios, who, acting on behalf of Her Majesty, introduce Bills for approval, with the realisation that a Bill accepted by the Assembly must have Her Majesty’s Royal Assent before it becomes an Act.
It is also agreed that, under the terms of the agreement, David Trimble is basically a Unionist prime minister in the Province of Northern Ireland and that Mark Durkan is deputy prime minister. All the signatories to the agreement have accepted that. If any party continues to rail at such an arrangement, then it is failing to fulfil the requirements of the agreement, the full implementation of which it regularly calls for. None can cherry-pick.
It is time to realise what section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states. The words are
"It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1."
I am not aware of any poll having been held to change that or show that the majority of people think otherwise. The continued railing in the Chamber about our status contributes to the regrettable street violence turned to by our divided society.
The Republican movement continually contends that the agreement should be fully implemented, so why can Republicans not fully conform to its terms? It comes back to respect. The agreement that was recognised and accepted contained the wording to which I referred. Moreover, it must be realised that we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not by any privilege, but by right. The geography of the British Isles, with British-Irish, British-English, British-Welsh and British-Scots, makes us all on these islands members of one family. "Parity of esteem" means parity of esteem in, but not of, the system. One sovereignty is evident — that of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. There is no joint sovereignty, as some people seek. Stop trying to change in midstream that which was accepted on Good Friday 1998.
In referring to the situation, I wish not to taunt or to jibe but to spell out the facts of the situation now obtaining. There is a need for honesty in these days of continued strife in parts of our community. Should such violence continue, it will be upon the shoulders of those who fail to uphold the agreement to which they adamantly adhere when expounding their theories.
The Ulster Unionist Party has fully implemented its part of the agreement. We seek peace and prosperity for all in the Province. I come from a working-class background and am aware of the difficulties of trying to live. Sinn Féin constantly perpetuates strife and division and creates physical, mental and emotional deprivation. It is also contrary to the aims of the agreement.
Actions speak louder than words. If equality as a citizen is the demand, Sinn Féin and others must, as citizens, demonstrate their responsibilities to this state. Now is not the time to destroy or disrupt but to work together for the benefit of the state, and mutual respect will evolve.

Mr Alex Attwood: I refer first to Gregory Campbell’s amendment. Although we will not support it, I acknowledge that his intention does not seem to be to do to this Building what others do to the streets of Belfast and beyond. Areas are staked out by one paramilitary group or another in a territorial war against the interests of the citizens and communities of those areas. At least this Building is not going to be reduced to what we have around the North, with flags and bunting and with kerbstones decked out in the colours of one or other side.
His speech was, nonetheless, curious. He said that he wanted real and genuine recognition of Unionism and Nationalism in this Building and invoked the memory of various people who did or did not abstain from the Stormont Parliament. The words in the amendment are
"the parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate."
If that is the desired principle, should the experience of Nationalism in this Building and in Parliament since partition not be reflected? According to Mr Campbell’s argument, should this Building not record the Nationalist experience under the Special Powers Act of 1922, and such other Nationalist experiences as being excluded from Government, of gerrymandering in council areas throughout the North and of internment as endorsed by the Parliament that once sat here?
If Members wish to seriously reflect the parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate, they must move beyond the personalities who once occupied seats in a former Chamber. They must allow us, in line with their argument, to record the real experience of Nationalism and Unionism in the past 80 years, which was, including for Unionists, inconsistent with good government and good policy.
A second curious element of Gregory Campbell’s speech was that he encouraged the other Parliament on this island, Dáil Éireann, to accept the principle whereby that which was British in the history of Ireland should be greater reflected in the symbols and emblems displayed there. If he is prepared to ask the Dáil to reflect Britishness in its Chamber and Buildings, he must accept that the same principle should apply in this Chamber and in this Building. If he thinks that one Parliament should acknowledge the diversity of the people on the island, as he sees it, he should accept that this Parliament and this Building should also reflect the diversity of the people on this part of the island. I doubt that certain Members will accept that that principle should apply here, even though they encourage its application elsewhere.
As always, Robert McCartney gave Members insight into his personal thinking and political culture. He reads his worst fears into any principle that appears to recognise the parity of esteem of political traditions, especially Nationalism. Those worst fears are that abuses of human rights, visited upon the citizens and communities of Northern Ireland by Republican paramilitaries, will be memorialised in this place. That approach is central to Robert McCartney’s political philosophy. He reads into proposals that might be sensible and reasonable that which is worst and most to fear. On behalf of my party, I advise Robert McCartney, and any Members who read into the motion their worst fears, that that is not the SDLP’s intention. Nor is it the desired outcome that it would want to see from the Commission should the motion be passed.
Mr Roche took a similar view to Mr McCartney. He said that with the Belfast Agreement comes the logic of the promotion and elevation of terrorism in the North. I do not agree. The Belfast Agreement ensures that no part of our community, whether Loyalist or Republican, will feel so alienated, frustrated or damaged that it feels justified in reverting to the use of arms to convey a political message or effect political change. The Good Friday Agreement creates the context, basis and framework in which the logic of terrorism is not fulfilled but in which the logic of democracy prevails.
The motion is about the logic of democracy in a divided society. That logic says that those divided and in conflict must respect one another. That is what the motion is about, not what Mr Roche seems to think.
However, in one way I sympathise with Unionists’ points, particularly Mr Foster’s. Sinn Féin says in the motion that it wants to promote mutual respect rather than division; it says that that should be done in Parliament Buildings through the use of symbols and emblems. If Sinn Féin accepts that there should be mutual respect rather than division on those issues, let it apply those principles to all symbols and emblems wherever they are in the North. As we know — [Interruption].

Mr Gregory Campbell: Does that include the South?

Mr Alex Attwood: That means anywhere on this island. We know that in Republican symbols and emblems to those whom they call their dead there is little that promotes mutual respect rather than division. How have Republicans promoted mutual respect in the expression of their war memorials, as they put it? Where in flouting the law by erecting illegal memorials have they shown mutual respect rather than division? Where have they, through constructing memorials that elevate those who visited grief and grievance on so many across the political divide over the past 30 years shown mutual respect rather than division? Sinn Féin may feel that its people have lost greatly, but where does it acknowledge in its memorials that it has also inflicted greatly? In failing to acknowledge that, how does that party promote mutual respect rather than division?
For our purposes, the SDLP supports the amendment — [Interruption].

Mr John Dallat: The motion.

Mr Alex Attwood: The SDLP supports the motion. In doing so, the party does not go down the road of Mr Foster’s — [Interruption].

Mr Peter Weir: Twice the Member said that he supports the amendment and then he said that he supported the motion. Will he clarify his party’s stance? That may be helpful to those Members on either side of the motion who will wind up the debate.

Mr Alex Attwood: The Member knows the answer to that question, and I am sure that he will say in his response that he knows the answer.
In supporting the motion, I shall outline its real intentions. Some Members have read their worst fears into it; some have promoted it but have done so selectively, as Sinn Féin has demonstrated. In supporting the motion, we are trying to ensure that Government buildings express equality, independence and impartiality. We are trying to design Government buildings that create, and are seen to create, confidence in the administration of Government. They should proclaim parity of esteem and inspire public confidence in equality of treatment. Those are the best intentions behind the motion, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Peter Weir: In winding up on the amendment, I should like to deal with a few points that the previous Member raised. I am glad that towards the end of his speech he clarified whether the SDLP would yet again fall in behind Sinn Féin.
The "Most Oppressed People Ever (MOPEs)", as Ruth Dudley Edwards called them, have treated us to another diatribe, but the Member has clearly not dealt with the salient points of the motion. We are told that inclusiveness is the real spirit behind the motion; we are told that Unionists who are concerned that this will be an open door to terrorist memorials in this Building are merely expressing their worst fears.
The concern of Mr McNamee, one of the supporters of the motion, is that the amendment has a narrow focus, yet it would cater for a degree of representation for parliamentarians who were constitutional Unionists, constitutional Nationalists and those who describe themselves as of the third tradition in Northern Ireland, be that Alliance or Labour. So if the amendment includes those people, why has it too narrow a focus? Who is not included? Clearly, the representatives of Republican and Loyalist terrorism are not — and our worst fears have been realised.
Mr Attwood was not 100% clear on our view of Dáil Éireann: we do not care what happens there. It is a different jurisdiction and, frankly, if they want to put a 100-foot-high tricolour on Dáil Éireann, that is a matter for them. We were making the point that the Republic of Ireland does not represent the British tradition.
Phrases appear in the motion which make alarm bells ring. Many groups use the word "justice" in their title, and that raises suspicions about their motives. In the old Eastern bloc, any country that used the word "democratic" in its title was the antithesis of that quality. When Sinn Féin/IRA uses the phrases "equality of opportunity" and "neutral working environment", that is the last we will see of them.
Is this a question of a "neutral working environment"? I contend not. The Assembly was set up four years ago, yet the representatives of Sinn Féin/IRA, their staff and supporters have had no problem going round and working in this Building. Every Christmas, a large party is thrown here. So oppressive is the regime to Sinn Féin/IRA that it has taken it four years to remember that Parliament Buildings is supposedly not a neutral environment.
But this is not the real purpose of the motion. This is about cultural imperialism and cultural intolerance. When Republicans are in control, they remove symbols of Britishness, to destroy that tradition. We do not need to look as far as the Republic of Ireland to see that cultural imperialism; Sam Foster spoke about what Sinn Féin has delivered in Fermanagh. Someone once described it as a dog marking out its territory. Where it can, it removes symbols of Britishness, and where it is not in the majority, it falls back on the next option, which is to declare that there must be equality between Irish Republicanism and the state that we are in.
I have no desire to live in a society that destroys symbols, including the symbols around this Building. We do not want to create, as Sinn Féin clearly does despite its protestations today, a Northern Ireland Taliban let loose to destroy the historic symbols of this Building. That is what would happen if the motion were passed. This is a clear attempt to score political points. Sinn Féin has tolerated the situation for four years, and suddenly these issues have to be resolved in four months — is it trying to score some early election points?
The amendment, by contrast, is open-ended by time, and due reflection can be given to the best way in which to reflect the parliamentary tradition of the Building properly. Unlike the motion, the amendment does not aim to attack the Britishness of this part of the United Kingdom, though I have grave concerns that some Unionists have signed up to an agreement which is, bit by bit, diminishing that Britishness.
Irrespective of varying interpretations of the Belfast Agreement, the DUP will not sign up to any system that creates a dimmer-switch form of Britishness, whereby bit by bit it becomes darker and colder for the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. We will not support any motion that diminishes and destroys the symbols of Britishness in the Chamber or anywhere else.
We are told constantly by those who moved the motion that they do not wish to destroy any of the existing symbols or emblems in Parliament Buildings, so why did they object to the amendment’s focus on additional symbols? The amendment aims to protect the existing symbols and to show respect to the distinguished parliamentarians who are honoured in this Building. The amendment would not destroy or subtract; it would produce additional symbols.
The amendment would allow symbols that recognise only the parliamentary history of this Building. It therefore makes an appropriate distinction between constitutional politicians, and terrorists and gangsters — Paddy Roche, Bob McCartney, Gregory Campbell and others made that point. Given that it is impossible to be a proper parliamentarian and to be linked to terrorism, and that both sides clearly reject terrorism, I fail to understand why the Northern Ireland Unionist Party cannot support the amendment.
The full tradition of constitutional politicians should be recognised in this Building. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we can recognise the many Nationalists who contributed to the parliamentary life of Stormont. Paddy Devlin was mentioned; Gerry Fitt could be mentioned, and Gregory Campbell mentioned others. Some people who consider themselves to be neither Unionist nor Nationalist made a big contribution to the life of the Parliament. We should, for example, consider how to recognise the former representatives of the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Perhaps we could have a symbol to recognise the Alliance Party, which has existed for 30 years. Given recent events, perhaps we could have a portrait of its last leader. It seems, however, that the Alliance Party has moved ahead of the game, having left the Chamber when we began to debate the motion.
We should reflect the history of this Building in a way that recognises the state that we are in, because despite the best efforts of some Members opposite, we are still part of the United Kingdom. We should do that in a way that seeks to add, rather than subtract, and in a way that respects constitutional politicians rather than terrorist gangsters. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am not surprised but a little disappointed by the Ulster Unionist response. The motion was an attempt to address the Assembly Commission, the body responsible for the matter. The contributions by some Members on the other Benches reflect poorly on their parties’ representatives on the Assembly Commission. First, their representatives could not be trusted to debate the matter and provide the Unionist perspective, and secondly, they thought that it was a task too far for the Assembly Commission to complete this review within two months. I have confidence in my party Colleague in the Assembly Commission and believe that it could deal adequately with the matter.
The motion did not prescribe anything. It simply recognised that the Building and the estate are adorned with many symbols of Unionist and British political life, while there is limited, if not non-existent, recognition of the rest of the community in the North. The motion was an attempt to have the Assembly Commission, which is responsible for the Building and the estate, consider the matter, to study what the agreement suggested should be done about it, and to implement a structured approach to deal with it. Peter Weir and Gregory Campbell said that the matter had been raised consistently with the Speaker since the agreement was signed four years ago.
As I acknowledged in my initial presentation, the Speaker has moved to deal with some of these issues. He has made some efforts, but they have mainly done on an ad-hoc basis. We are suggesting that the Assembly Commission, as the corporate body responsible for the Building and the estate, look seriously at this issue. The attitude of people such as Dr Birnie surprises me, as this would be done in a manner consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which his party supports.
I will now deal with some of the issues raised. Some were very wide of what the debate was about, but you expect that. Mr Roche went into details of people who were killed, but for every time the anti-agreement Unionists raise details of some unfortunate, innocent individual who was killed, people on this side of the House could raise similar graphic details about people murdered by the UDR, the RUC and the British Army. There are victims and pain on both sides.
Mr Campbell said in his contribution that the symbols reflected the founding of the State, and compared that unfavourably with the founding of the State in the South, and Leinster House. If he took the time to go to Leinster House he would see two portraits inside the main entrance — one on either side of the hall. One is of Cathal Brugha and the other is of Michael Collins. Cathal Brugha violently opposed the setting up of the State in the South, and was killed violently opposing it. Michael Collins was also killed in the setting up of the State in the South. Therefore, that is an example and a precedent of where different political traditions —[Interruption].

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for giving way. That approach to history is very revisionist. The Member has named two individuals who took different interpretations of what the correct Republican response to the 1921 Treaty was. Neither was defending the inclusion of the Twenty-six Counties within the British Empire after 1921.

Mr Conor Murphy: I said that Mr Campbell referred to the fact that the symbols here reflect the setting up of the State, and compared that unfavourably with Leinster House. I am saying that in Leinster House there is a portrait of a person who opposed the setting up of that State opposite a portrait of someone who was instrumental in the setting up of that State.
I am aware that a statue of Queen Victoria was dug up in University College, Cork and replaced there — so efforts have been made. Both Mr Campbell and Mr Weir talked about reflecting the fact that some Nationalists attended Stormont during the 50 years of its existence and misrule. Yet, if you look around the Building, there is not a single testimony to their attendance, position, political ideology, and their desire to see unity in this island reflected here.
Dr Birnie spoke about the intent of the motion, and I repeat that the intent is to have this matter dealt with by the responsible Committee of the House in a way that is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which Dr Birnie supports. It is not about toppling statues, as happened in Eastern Europe — though having seen some of those statues, I imagine that perhaps the office of good taste had a responsibility for toppling them. I will correct one point that he made about the flags issue being dealt with by the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. That Order does not apply to Parliament Buildings; the control of the flying of flags on Parliament Buildings is a matter for the Assembly Commission.
Mr Roche anticipated some proposals that he thought I might make. He realised that I had not made them but was not in a position to change his speech, and went on with the normal rant against the Good Friday Agreement. I repeat that I did not proscribe or prescribe the display here of any symbols; I simply asked that a Committee take responsibility for the issue.
Mr McCartney made a similar contribution, and it was interesting that he referred to democrats such as Carson and Craig. It is unfortunate that the Unionists who took over the Ulster Unionist Party after him did not adhere to the words he quoted from Carson — perhaps we would not be in the mess that we have been in for recent years. It was interesting to hear him talk about them, because both Carson and Craig were quite willing to resort to violence when democracy did not suit them. When he was talking about Craig it struck me that John Kelly, whom they accuse of gunrunning, should be quite at home with the statue of Craigavon on the Stairs, because he was also a gunrunner. So these are the parliamentarians — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order please.

Mr Conor Murphy: Allegedly. As they say on ‘Have I Got News for You’: allegedly.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Your Colleague from Mid Ulster, John Kelly, will be pleased with that ringing endorsement and the admission that he was a gunrunner.

Mr Conor Murphy: I said that John Kelly has also been accused of gunrunning. [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Conor Murphy: That illustrates that the parliamentarians whom the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists hold dear were willing to engage in gunrunning and subversive activities in challenging their own Government of the day. They resorted to violence when democracy did not suit them. It ill behoves them to point these out as examples of people —

Mr Robert McCartney: Is there any evidence that they murdered anyone?

Mr Conor Murphy: I am sure that the guns that the same gentlemen imported through Larne were responsible for quite a few murders at the time of the inception of this state.
Sam Foster said that people should be honest. I shall be honest with him: we oppose the existence of this state. Therefore we oppose the imposition of the Union flag. I, as an Irish Republican, am being honest. We have always demonstrated clearly our intention and our desire to see the end of this state and the creation of a new Ireland. There is no surprise in that. Mr Foster was perhaps trying to provoke us by talking about our Ministers as "Ministers of the state" and "seeking Royal Assent", but he merely proved how much Sinn Féin has moved to accommodate Unionists in implementing the Good Friday Agreement and by taking those steps.
He made an interesting comment that we all should note: he said that David Trimble was a Unionist Prime Minister and that Mark Durkan was a deputy Minister. David Trimble must have held that job description privately because that is how he has acted since he was elected, rather than follow his official job description, which is to act jointly with Mark Durkan as First Minister and Deputy First Minister for all the people of this region.
I agree with some of the points made by Alex Attwood on the amendment. Unionists are happy to commemorate one or two individuals who may have participated in Stormont over the years, but there is absolutely no reflection of their political ideology, their identity or the experience of the Nationalist people as a whole.
The issue of war memorials is difficult. There are sensitive issues, and I urge people to be sensitive in erecting any memorial to anyone who was involved in the conflict or who lost his life in it. We must be sensitive, and I would not be opposed to an attempt to agree proposals on a way forward. Republicans say consistently to me that the SDLP objects to those, yet it would rarely, if ever, object to war memorials being erected to people in the British Army or to windows being installed in the city hall to the RUC or the UDR, people who have had —

Mr Alex Attwood: If the Member examines the record, on every occasion when there was a proposal in the chamber of Belfast city hall to install a window, for example to the Royal Irish Regiment, the British Army or the RUC, the SDLP is on record as opposing it. Does the Member accept that? [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Conor Murphy: I accept the Member’s correction. I am not a member of Belfast City Council, but my experience of other councils is not the same. Recently, at Craigavon Borough Council, Mr Attwood’s party supported such a proposal.
It was interesting that Peter Weir, as a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, referred to Dáil Éireann and said that his party does not care what happens there. The Democratic Unionist Party constantly cites the experience of Southern Protestants as being of huge interest, yet it has no interest in how the institutions of the Southern state reflect the totality of life there.
Mr Weir made another interesting remark in saying that when Eastern bloc countries use the title "democratic", one knows that they are the very antithesis of democracy. Nevertheless, he moved from a party that does not have that word in its title to one that has. The point is well made that those who must state to the world that they are democratic often have some way to go to be so. He also said that — [Interruption].
I can hear some chittering going on, but I shall try to address my remarks —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. [Interruption].

Mr Conor Murphy: Those who do not wish to hear are those who squeal the loudest.
Peter Weir made some remarks that our proposals — I hasten to add that we did not make any proposals, we are referring the issue to the Assembly Commission — were akin to dogs marking out their territory. It must have been a very expensive dog that marked out this piece of territory. All the money was poured into all the symbols that reflect the British and Unionist ethos.
He raised the issue of the four-year timescale. That has been raised consistently with the Speaker. It is on record as being raised in the Chamber, and it is certainly on record as being raised at meetings of the Assembly Commission. The timescale for the Commission to report back is achievable. It may be a reflection on Jim Wells or Bob Coulter or on the Members who think that that is not enough time for the Commission to get their heads around a piece of business. Members on this side of the Chamber who sit on the Assembly Commission feel that it is well within their capabilities.
The issue is one of embracing a genuinely new beginning to politics on this island. The Building and the estate, for better or worse, embody the hopes of the vast majority of the people of this community in the North for a shared future, free from the conflict of the past. Everyone has a stake in that future and their identity — Unionist, Nationalist, Republican or other — should be welcomed and reflected in our institutions.
The proposal identifies a way that we can discuss and agree that shared future together, through the responsible body in the Assembly. It should be supported, and we should look forward to the Assembly Commission bringing a report to the Chamber in the autumn that we can all debate.
Question
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Assembly Commission to report to the Assembly on how any additional symbols and emblems can reflect the parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate.
Adjourned at 6.04 pm.